Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For the Borough of Portsmouth (North Division), in the room of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Brownlow Keyes, Baronet, G.C.B., K.C.V.O., C.M.G., D.S.O., called up to the House of Peers.

For the County of Norfolk (King's Lynn Division), in the room of the Hon. Somerset Arthur Maxwell, killed on active service—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Social Security

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government intend to invite the International Labour Office and the Allied Governments in London to consider the Beveridge Report with a view to securing the adoption of plans for social security or social insurance in all countries friendly to the United Nations?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio made it clear in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 19th January, the Beveridge Report is still under consideration by His Majesty's Government. In these circumstances it would be premature to consider the proposal of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Smith: When matters of this kind are to be considered, is it the intention of the Government to use the machinery which has been set up by the International Labour Office, and, if so, is it the intention of the Government to encourage all the countries that come within the United Nations to join the International Labour Office?

Mr. Eden: I think that is a rather wider question, but on this particular question I think we ought to make up our own minds first.

Mr. Molson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Republic of Czechoslovakia there was a social security scheme before the war?

Poland (Aid)

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an estimate of the number of Polish citizens in Poland who have been massacred; and whether he can give an assurance that every possible step will be taken by the United Nations to protect and aid the Polish people, particularly as we gave Poland a guarantee before she entered the war?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that it is not possible to give any reliable estimate, but there is no doubt that very many thousands of Polish citizens have been the victims of German brutality in Poland. I have no hesitation in giving the assurance mentioned in the second part of the Question. But my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that the aid and protection which we can at present give to the Polish people is limited by obvious physical difficulties. What we can and will do is to press forward as rapidly as possible to final victory and to the liberation of the Polish people.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (INSURGENT FORCES)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any discussions have taken place with the Soviet Government upon the unification of the various insurgent forces in Yugoslavia in a common effort against the enemy?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any discussions have taken place during the last six months with the Soviet Government on questions of post-war reconstruction?

Mr. Eden: Certain questions of post-war reconstruction are under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the


Soviet Government and, in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, His Majesty's Government have every intention of keeping in touch with the Soviet Government in the formulation of post-war policy generally.

Mr. Parker: In view of the unfortunate fighting between the patriots and the partisans in Yugoslavia instead of their fighting the common enemy, is it not essential to get agreement with the Soviet Government to prevent that sort of thing happening all through Eastern Europe when Hitler is defeated?

Mr. Eden: That is what we most ardently desire.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in any negotiations with the Soviet Government the importance of herring to both countries?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will be unlikely to let me forget it.

Oral Answers to Questions — JEWISH REFUGEES (POST-WAR SETTLEMENT)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government, through the Red Cross or otherwise, to help to support in neutral countries Jews who have escaped from German-occupied lands who cannot be admitted to this country or Palestine, with a view to some permanent settlement being arranged after the war?

Mr. Eden: I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the reply returned on 19th January by the Deputy Prime Minister to a Question put by my hon. Friends the Members for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) and Consett (Mr. David Adams). His Majesty's Government are confident that, in the application of any measures of rescue and relief that may be agreed, they may count upon receiving the assistance of all recognised humanitarian and charitable organisations, including the British Red Cross with which they are in close touch.

Mr. Hannah: Are the Government doing the very utmost that we can in this extremely important question?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, but, as has been explained to my hon. Friend, if the effort

is to be really effective it must be on an international basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY-OCCUPIED EUROPE (COLLABORATION WITH NAZIS)

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps will be taken to warn all persons in the occupied countries of Europe of the consequences of collaboration with the Nazis if such collaboration is voluntary and not the result of pressure or terror?

Mr. Eden: Warnings of this kind have already been issued and given full publicity, and they will be repeated from time to time.

Mr. Price: Have any steps been taken to warn neutral countries not to grant protection or asylum to persons sought by the Allies after the war?

Mr. Eden: I think that is another question. I think I gave a reply last week to the effect that we are in consultation with other Governments about the steps to be taken.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what those consequences of collaboration are? It has never been stated what they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL AND SPAIN (EXCHANGE OF VIEWS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether our treaty relations with Portugal are affected by the recent neutrality agreement between that country and Spain?

Mr. Eden: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the recent exchange of views at Lisbon between the Portuguese and Spanish Foreign Ministers concerning the strengthening of what was then described as "a Peninsular bloc of mutual friendship and external peace." His Majesty's Government have always been in full sympathy with the desire of the Portuguese and Spanish Governments to prevent the war spreading to the Iberian Peninsula and they do not regard their treaty relations with Portugal as being in any way affected by the recent exchange of views at Lisbon.

Mr. Cocks: Does our ancient Ally tell us beforehand what she proposes to do in the sphere of foreign policy?

Mr. Eden: We were kept fully informed by Portugal of these discussions. They told us what had happened, and we welcome what has happened.

Mr. Hannah: Is our 14th Century Alliance with Portugal still in force?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROME (BOMBING)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any reasons, technical, political or diplomatic, to justify Rome having been hitherto exempted from bombing by British aircraft?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement I made on 20th January.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is very genuine anxiety and indeed even suspicion with regard to our reasons for affording this hide-out for the Fascist Government, and will he not take steps to allay that anxiety as early as possible?

Mr. Eden: I gave an extremely definite and specific answer last week. I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member should be suspicious of my wishing to create a Fascist hide-out.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Parker: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I have Question 13 on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: That is the fourth Question the hon. Member has on the Paper.

Mr. Parker: No. 12 was withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but it is still on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (REFORM)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary or State for Foreign Affairs whether he now has any statement to make regarding the, proposals for the reform of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Eden: I am to-day laying before Parliament a White Paper in which hon. Members will find a summary of the proposals of His Majesty's Government for the reform of the Foreign Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH AFRICA (PRESS INFORMATION)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by the Press in obtaining accurate and up-to-date information from their correspondents concerning the political situation, as distinct from the military situation, in North Africa; and whether he will make representations, either through our Minister Resident or in other ways, with a view to improving the flow of such information to this country?

Mr. Eden: I have already been in communication with the Minister Resident on this subject. I understand that during the early stages of the Operation in North Africa the Allied authorities felt obliged, for reasons of military security, to exercise a somewhat strict censorship on outgoing Press messages. I am informed, however, that this censorship has now been relaxed and that newspaper correspondents, equally with radio commentators, are allowed wider discretion in their reports on the political situation. I am assured that in such matters British correspondents receive the same treatment as their American colleagues.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one great national paper has cabled twice or three times to its correspondent in North Africa and has had no reply whatever? Will he be able to guarantee that newspapers will now be able to get direct information on political matters?

Mr. Eden: I do not know the dates of the incidents to which the hon. Member referred, but I have been in communication with the Minister Resident, and from the replies I am quite clear that the position has greatly improved.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Colonial Personnel (Badge)

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has yet been reached which with permit personnel in the Royal Air Force and Women's Auxiliary Air Force who have come from Colonial dependencies to wear distinguishing shoulder badges?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am glad to be able to say that, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions as to the place of birth or residence, members of the Royal Air Force and Women's Auxiliary Air Force may in future wear, as a shoulder badge, the name of the Colonial dependency in which they were born or resided.

Enemy Tip-and-Run Raids

Captain C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to combat the tip-and-run raids on the South-east coast?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. The tactical methods best suited for defending this and other areas which are subject to varying forms of attack are under constant review, and the maximum scale of defence is provided consistent with the strategic requirements of the country as a whole.

Air-Raid, London (Defence Measures)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make on the daylight air-raid made on a London district on 20th January, resulting in severe casualties at a school; and the reasons for the delay in sounding the air-raid warning before the attack took place?

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has made any inquiries into the cause of the delay in sounding the air-raid sirens on the occasion of the daylight raid on London on Wednesday, 20th January; and whether he has any statement to make?

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of public anxiety at the alleged absence of the protection of balloon barrage against enemy aircraft at low levels, in connection with a recent raid, he can now make a statement on the matter?

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the petition signed by a number of local residents complaining that no warning was given recently prior to bombs falling and that the local balloon barrage was not in operation; and what action he proposes to take to prevent such omissions in the future?

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on Wednesday last an enemy air-raid on South-East London was in progress before the alert was sounded, the balloon barrage sent aloft and the shelters unlocked; whether there has been any investigation into this, and with what result?

Sir A. Sinclair: With the permission of the hon. Members, I will answer these Questions together.

Mr. Ammon: Before Question 23 is answered in this way, I want to put a point to you, Sir. This Question covered more than one Department—

Sir A. Sinclair: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish what I was going to say.

Mr. Ammon: No; this is a question of the rights of the House. Question 23 was originally addressed to the Prime Minister, because it covered more than one Department. I was asked to withdraw it, and to address it to one Departmental Minister. I took advice from the authorities at the Table, and was told that I was right in addressing it to the Prime Minister. Under those circumstances, Sir, is it right that the Question should be so altered and addressed to one Departmental Minister? This is a matter which might raise a serious issue concerning the rights of hon. Members of this House.

Sir A. Sinclair: I think I ought to mention, with regard to that part of the Question which deals with shelters, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will make a statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. Ammon: It was to the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, that I addressed the Question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) is quite correct. The Question should have been left as it was.

Sir A. Sinclair: On Wednesday, 20th January, 60 German aircraft crossed the South coast at various places between Bexhill and Dungeness. They did not fly straight to London. They moved in such a way as to indicate that their intention was to drop their bombs in Sussex or Kent. It is a long time since German aircraft have ventured to attack London in


daylight. Hon. Members will recall that the subject of air-raid warnings has been frequently discussed in the House. There are, broadly, two systems which can be adopted. One is to issue a warning immediately to all areas which might be affected when an enemy aircraft is first detected. The other is to restrict the warning to those areas on which it seems likely that an attack is actually impending. The first system exposes the country to repeated and needless warnings, and enables the enemy to dislocate the civil life of the country at very little cost; inevitably it would lead to public indifference to the warning, and this would itself increase the likelihood of casualties when an attack developed. The second system which involves the exercise of discretion on the part of Fighter Command, was therefore adopted, and it was explained to the House at the time that it must entail the risk that on occasions bombs would be dropped without warning. Attacks on coastal targets are not at all uncommon, and the House will appreciate the difficulty of deciding whether aircraft reported in the vicinity of the coast are likely to remain in that area or to continue their flight to London. Hostile aircraft can be over London within very few minutes of crossing the coast.
On 20th January some 12 German fighter-bombers detached themselves from the main body which had crossed the coast, swept over the South-Eastern suburbs of London, and dropped bombs promiscuously. From the military standpoint the raid was a failure, but grievous casualties were inflicted, especially on the children at a school in Lewisham. It is true that over a certain area of London the balloons were close-hauled. As I informed the House yesterday, this was not due to any negligence or default. The reason was that indispensable work connected with the air defences of London was then in progress. This work has to be carried out in day-time, and it was necessary for the balloons to be down while it was going on.
The best deterrent to such attacks as that on 20th January is the infliction of heavy casualties on the attackers. Of the 60 aircraft which crossed the coast, 10 were certainly destroyed. Four of the enemy aircraft which supported the operation in the Channel were also destroyed.

In addition, three aircraft were probably destroyed and eight were damaged.

Mr. Ammon: I want to put two short questions. First, was there any failure in the radiolocation; and, secondly, would it not be advisable when the balloons are being attended to in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman not to take so wide an area of adjacent boroughs as was done in this case, when almost the whole of South-East London was covered?

Sir A. Sinclair: On the first question, I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that those who worked the radiolocation system performed their duties admirably. On the second point, I am afraid that I conveyed a misleading impression yesterday. I am afraid the House thought I was referring to work on the balloons when I referred to maintenance work. That is not so. The work was of a character that requires the balloons to be close-hauled.

Mr. Thorne: I take it that the Minister knows that among our aircraft was a Typhoon, which brought down at least four?

Sir A. Sinclair: The Typhoons did very well indeed.

Mr. Cocks: When this maintenance work is being done would it not be possible to have fighter aircraft circling over London?

Mr. A. Duckworth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask whether he is taking every possible step to make known throughout the world the nature of this raid, in which a school was singled out for low-flying attack?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that when the orders to fly balloons reached the sites they were carried out with the usual promptness and efficiency; and did not the W.A.A.F. personnel on balloon sites justify the confidence placed in them?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, that is quite true; and the W.A.A.F. acted admirably with the balloons.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: If they had not acted admirably, ought they not to have been severely dealt with?

Mr. Guy: I note that the Minister specially speaks of the South-Eastern area. Might I pay great tribute to—

Hon. Members: No.

At the end of Questions—

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): In reply to Question 23, local authorities, except in coastal areas liable to raids without warning, have been authorised to lock air-raid shelters, provided that adequate arrangements are made for the shelters to be opened on, or immediately after, the sounding of the alert. This action has proved necessary to prevent extensive damage and pilfering. I am informed by the London Regional Commissioners that they have not heard of any case of a public shelter in London being locked on 20th January when the public wished to gain access. My hon. Friend, the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), may refer, however, to communal shelters which are allocated for the use of individual families. The keys of such shelters are issued to members of the families concerned, duplicate keys being kept at the nearest warden's post. In the case of one of these shelters, it has been ascertained that the person with whom the key was lodged was away from home ill on 20th January. But adjacent to this shelter there is a sign directing persons caught in the street to a public shelter which is open at all times and which is 50 yards away. In many cases a notice is exhibited in the entrance of communal shelters indicating where the key can be found. The Regional Commissioners are advising all local authorities in the London Region to adopt this practice.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I regret the necessity for the policy of keeping shelters locked, but, as the House knows, the irresponsible behaviour of a certain section of the population in certain areas has made it unavoidable.

Sir William Davison: Is not this a policy of defeatism that shelters should be kept locked and the public exposed to danger, especially from our new shells, because there are a lot of hooligans about who are not under control? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that much more drastic penalties ought to be imposed at once on anyone wilfully damaging shelters? The Royal Borough of Kensington, which has lost thousands of pounds' worth of material in shelters, is now advertising a £5 reward at each shelter for any information as to persons damaging the shelter.

Mr. Tinker: Would it not be better to keep the shelters unlocked and take the risk of what is happening?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member was aware of the extreme difficulty that local authorities have had and the enormous amount of labour and material that the Minister of Home Security has had to provide to repair damage, he would not put that question. It is a very serious matter, and I regret it. It is not merely that the shelters are open, but they must also be clean, decent, healthy, lighted, and ready for occupation.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory that a shelter with room for 40 people should be allocated to two families aggregating six or seven people?

Mr. Brown: There is a very great variety of shelters, and what we have done is to try to meet the individual needs of the largest number concerned.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: In all fairness to Civil Defence workers and local authorities, ought it not to be stated that when these new missiles are coming down 95 per cent. of the people, for some reason best known to themselves, prefer to take the risk of being out rather than use the shelters even when they are unlocked?

Mr. Brown: The great bulk of the people have shown a wonderful morale throughout the raids.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Would it not be possible to have an electrical device whereby shelters can be opened from a central point?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman examines some of the shelters, he will see that there are devices, such as keys in boxes with glass fronts. There are also special smash devices. In the light of our experience, we have made every possible attempt to solve the problem of making the shelters available, and of keeping them fit for healthy use. There is, however, a very small reactionary body of people in certain areas who can only be described as saboteurs.

Sir W. Davison: Will the Government consider my proposal as to imposing heavy penalties on people who wreck shelters?

Mr. Brown: There are penalties now. It is difficult to carry out the idea of a continuous patrol of every shelter in the country, but in areas where there has been extensive damage the local authorities are keeping a continuous watch, and I have assisted them with the loan of inspectors from my own Department, but despite that there are cases where it is impossible to stop the damage. Therefore, we have to take these precautions in order that the shelters may be ready and fit.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of a report just issued by a Committee of the American House of Representatives forecasting that 500,000 people will be flying their own aeroplanes and 20,000,000 passengers will be travelling every year by commercial air-lines; and whether he anticipates any similar developments in the Empire?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have not seen the report referred to, but I understand that it was submitted by a Select Committee of the House of Representatives appointed to investigate air accidents. As regards the second part of the Question, the answer is in the affirmative. The scale of expansion is, of course, a matter of conjecture.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of civil air transport in the Empire, he will consider the appointment of an additional Permanent Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry to take charge of civil aviation?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, but I do not think it would be advantageous to adopt it, at any rate at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORWEGIAN SHIPPING INDUSTRY (PAMPHLET)

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange facilities for the purchase in this country of the pamphlet recently published by the Royal Norwegian Government Information Office in respect of the development of the Norwegian shipping industry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I understand that such facilities have already been arranged through normal commercial channels, and that the pamphlet has been on sale on bookstalls throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED PROPAGANDA (UNIFORMITY)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Information what progress he has now made towards the setting-up of an Allied Propaganda Council with the object of placing Allied propaganda on an uniform basis?

Mr. Thurtle: The hon. Member will recall my right hon. Friend's answer to his Question on 30th September last. Since then, relations with the information services of our Allies have been growing steadily closer, and frequent consultations have led to increased co-ordination.

Dr. Thomas: In view of recent happenings and of the talks between the Prime Minister and the President, does my hon. Friend not think the time has come to press this matter of an Allied Council, so that propaganda may be put on a uniform basis and used to the best advantage as a strategic weapon?

Mr. Thurtle: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are constantly endeavouring to improve the co-operation and collaboration between the Allied Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Trunk and Toll Calls (Charges)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a trunk or toll telephone call of four minutes' duration for a chargeable distance of 36 to 50 miles costs 1s. 11d., whereas a similar call for a chargeable distance of 26 to 35 miles costs 2s. 4d.; and whether he will correct this anomaly?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware of the comparison to which my hon. Friend draws attention. The system of charging all toll and trunk calls was for many years by three minute periods; as a concession to subscribers one minute timing beyond the initial three minutes for calls beyond 35 miles was


introduced in 1929 and the necessary equipment provided. I should be reluctant to revert to three minute charging throughout on the longer calls, and to introduce one minute timing on the shorter calls would necessitate the provision of additional lines. This is out of the question at the present time.

Sir J. Mellon: Does not the present system tend to encourage people to use the telephone rather longer than is necessary?

Mr. Morrison: Though that may be said, I hope that people may be discouraged from using it unnecessarily by considerations of the public interest.

Supervising Officers (Retiring Age)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Postmaster-General why fit and efficient supervising officers in Glasgow post office are being compulsorily retired at 60 years of age with no right of appeal; and is this action in line with Government policy?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: So far as the needs of the service permit, fit and efficient supervising officers at Glasgow and elsewhere are being retained in the service after 60 years of age. Of the fit and efficient supervising officers at Glasgow who have reached 60 years of age, or will do so by the end of May, 20 have been, or will be, retained in the Service, and 9 have been, or will be retired at, or within a few months of, their 60th birthday. These retirements were decided upon in order to ensure that after the war there are sufficient younger supervising officers with the necessary experience to enable them to fill the higher supervising posts.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the Department in the fortunate position that it can dismiss physically fit and efficient supervisors of 60 years of age while at the same time asking school children to take up work at the Post Office?

Mr. Morrison: The school children came in at Christmas, which is a very big peak period at the Post Office in war and in peace, but the needs of the service demand that there shall be an avenue of promotion for younger supervising officers, so that when the time comes they will be able to fill the higher posts. On the whole, we are retaining a great number of men over 60 years of age at the moment.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that there is plenty of room in the Services for the younger supervisory grades, and should these fit and efficient men all be retained by the Post Office, which is in a better position than any other Department?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is not so.

Mr. Mathers: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what proportion of the total the numbers he has quoted represent?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I cannot say without notice, but I could work it out for the hon. Member.

Airgraph Mails

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his advertised appeal to the public to use more airgraphs, he will take steps to shorten the time of transmission of those airgraphs which are normally sent?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, airgraph mails are conveyed all the way by air to the appropriate Base, and my hon. Friend may be assured that every effort is made to ensure that they are conveyed by the most expeditious service available for the purpose at the material time.

Mr. Morgan: While thanking the Postmaster-General for his answer, is there any special reason why there is an extraordinary delay in messages to the troops and in replies from the troops in India?

Mr. Morrison: There are some cases of delay inevitably, because the addressee may be at a point of the front very distant from the place where the airgraph is received and processed, but, on the whole, the transmission times, excluding photographic processes, are about 15 days to India and South Africa and about eight days to other areas of war.

Mr. McKinlay: Is this because of a shortage of staff?

Major Lyons: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how it is that airgraphs reach this country more quickly than do letters sent by air mail?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, they reach this country more quickly than letters sent


by the ordinary air mail because a great part of the ordinary air mail letters journey is done by sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK CORNER (GATE CLOCK)

Sir W. Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether, in view of the large number of persons entering Hyde Park through the gates at Hyde Park Corner, he will consider having the clock at the gate lodge repaired and made available?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): This clock was removed after being badly damaged, by enemy action two years ago. The hon. Member will appreciate the great shortage of labour and materials, but I will see if it is possible to repair the clock or to install another in its place.

Sir W. Davison: While I thank my hon. Friend, I am sure he will realise the depressing effect at this great traffic centre of seeing for many months this boarded-up clock, and when he is brightening things up at Hyde Park Corner will he also have the rubbish heap beside the Royal Artillery Memorial removed?

Mr. MacLaren: And the Memorial as well?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING REGULATIONS (INFRINGEMENT)

Mr. Woods: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning in how many cases have proceedings been taken during 1942 against building owners, builders and architects, for alleged infringements of Regulation 56A; and with what results?

Mr. Hicks: During 1942, 26 cases involving 46 defendants have been brought into court, 43 defendants were convicted and fines amounting to £2,457 11s-imposed. One defendant was found not guilty, and the remaining two cases were dismissed on payment of costs.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Liquid Compasses

Sir R. Rankin: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that

liquid compasses which are liable to freeze, to leak and to become sluggish, are being supplied to new ships now building, instead of dry card compasses with the latest anti-vibrational suspensions; and what steps will be taken to remedy this?

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): Long experience has shown that liquid compasses are superior in performance to dry card compasses, even if fitted with anti-vibrational suspensions. Liquid compasses have the great advantage of "steadiness" which is of first importance in a marine compass and by the use of an appropriate filling mixture freezing can be prevented at any sea temperature, and, indeed, at lower temperatures, and instructions about the importance of filling compasses with the correct spirit mixture have lately been issued to all shipbuilders. The correctness of the decision, which was taken in consultation with the Ministry of War Transport, has been fully confirmed by experience in the Royal and Merchant Navies during the war. Leaking and sluggishness do not occur in a well made compass.

Stores (Misappropriation)

Major Lyons: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a case at Manchester Assizes where an Admiralty employee was convicted on 17th December; whether he is aware that this man was appointed a few weeks after being released from prison; why, by whom and upon what scrutiny this appointment was made; and what steps have been taken to prevent any repetition of such selection?

Mr. George Hall: For the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply made by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord on Tuesday of last week to a Question by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) concerning Vincent Furlong. The existing arrangements for investigating the character and antecedents of workmen before appointment are already under examination, with a view to eliminating defects, so far as this is possible without involving excessive delays or an undue increase of clerical work.

Major Lyons: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if there had been


any ordinary precautions at all this unfortunate case could not have occurred, and will he see that this sort of thing cannot happen again and that the, whole machinery is tightened up?

Mr. Hall: The normal precautions were taken, that is, as far as making inquiries where the police are concerned. That was done, and this man was in the employ of the Admiralty for a period of 10 months during which time he gave entire satisfaction.

Major Lyons: Is it not a fact that the man came almost straight out of prison to the Admiralty appointment, and could not the police have told the Admiralty, if they had inquired at all, that this man had come straight from prison to which he had been recently committed?

Mr. Hall: The normal inquiries were made—

Lieutenant-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: What good are they?

Mr. Hall: They were the inquiries of the police as to whether they had any information concerning any criminal action committed by this person.

Major Lyons: Did the police give him a good character; did they state that this man had come out of prison without disclosing the facts, and, if so, would the right hon. Gentleman take up the matter with the Home Secretary?

Mr. Hall: The police said they had no information concerning any criminal action on the part of this man.

Major Lyons: In view of this unfortunate occurrence, is the Admiralty going to sit down and do nothing?

Messrs. Drysdale and Company (Management)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied with the output and the quality of the work of Messrs. Drysdale and Company; and whether, in view of the long-standing differences between that firm and some of their workpeople, he will consider the installation of a manager appointed by himself?

Mr. George Hall: The Admiralty is fully satisfied with the output and quality of the work of the firm referred to, and I am not aware of any circumstances

which would justify taking the step proposed in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty has made any inquiries into the conditions at Messrs. Drysdale and Company, and is he aware that it is no use leaving it to the Minister of Labour, because the trade union movement have agreed that they have no right to interfere with managerial functions, and this is a question regarding the management?

Mr. Hall: I would like to inform my hon. Friend, as I have already said, that we have no complaint whatsoever against the conduct of the management or the production of this firm.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers when he says they have had no complaints. They have had complaints; there is a complaint in my Question, and will be make further inquiries?

Late Chief of Naval Air Services

Commander Bower: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Chief of the Naval Air Services is a qualified air pilot; and, if so, with how many flying hours to his credit?

Mr. George Hall: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member's Question relates to the late Chief of Naval Air Services, as that post lapsed on the appointment of a Fifth Sea Lord and an Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Air) announced on 22nd January. On that assumption the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Commander Bower: While fully appreciating the outstanding services of the late Chief of Naval Air Services, is this an indication that in the future the high direction of naval war will be in the hands of younger and more experienced men?

Viscountess Astor: Certainly not.

Mr. Hall: I must leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions about that matter.

Boys and Apprentices (War Bonus)

Commander Galbraith: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the rates of pay of boys in the Royal Navy, and when these rates were fixed?

Mr. George Hall: The rates of pay are at present 9d. a day for boys, 2nd class, and 1s. 3d. a day for boys, 1st class, boy telegraphists and signal boys. These rates' were fixed in October, 1925. I am, however, row in a position to announce to the House, on behalf of the three Service Departments, that it has been decided to grant a war bonus of 6d. a day to all Service boys and apprentices, with effect from 1st January, 1943.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible for boys younger than these to work on aerodrome sites and get more pay than second lieutenants in the Army?

Major Lyons: Is it not correct to say that an increase of this nature cannot compare with the increases in industry anywhere in the country?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a scandal that boys entering the Senior Service should be treated in this way? Is it not true that: they have no trade union to fight for, and protect, them?

Commander Galbraith: Is it not a fact that this increase of 6d. per day will not enable these boys to buy even the barest necessities?

Mr. Hall: This increase is based very largely upon the increases which were given to the adult serving men, and I am convinced it will be greatly appreciated by the boys.

Sir A. Southby: They will be deeply surprised to get any increase at all.

Fleet Air Arm Officers (Pay)

Commander Galbraith: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers of the Fleet Air Arm have recently had their pay reduced and the amount of the reduction?

—
Position before 1st October, 1942.
Changes made on 1st October, 1942.
Changes made on 1st December, 1942.



Basic Pay.
Flying. Pay
Total
Basic Pay.
Flying. Pay.
Total
Basic Pay.
Flying. Pay.
Total.


s.
d

s.
d.

s.
d.
s.
d.

s.
d.

s.
d.
s.
d.

s.
d.

s.
d.


Midshipmen
5
0
+
4
6
=
9
6
5
0
+
4
6
=
9
6
6
10
+
4
0
=
10
10


Acting Sub-Lieutenants
7
8
+
6
8
=
13
8
9
0
+
6
0
=
15
0
11
0
+
4
0
=
15
0


Sub-Lieutenants
9
0
+
6
0
=
15
0
11
0
+
6
0
=
17
0
13
0
+
6
0
=
19
0


Lieutenants
13
6
+
6
6
=
19
6
13
6
+
6
0
=
19
6
16
6
+
6
0
=
22
6

Mr. George Hall: The hon. and gallant Member no doubt has in mind the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on 26th November, when announcing improvements in the pay of junior naval officers. My right hon. Friend said that in order to preserve parity of treatment between flying personnel in the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force it would be necessary to reduce the flying pay of acting sub-lieutenants from 6s. to 4s. a day and of midshipmen from 4s. 6d. to 4s. a day. These reductions were compensated for, or more than compensated for, by increases in basic pay. A full statement showing the effect of the recent changes will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. Southby: Is that how you got the money to pay this increase to the boys?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir, because the increases granted to the persons to whom I have referred will cost very much more than was the case before the increases were worked out.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the very hazardous nature of the work of the Fleet Air Arm, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would have been far more generous to have left the pay of these officers as it was?

Mr. Hall: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to see the statement which has been issued. He Will see that increases have been given.

Commander Galbraith: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the pay of these officers has actually been increased?

Following is the statement:

W.R.N.S. (Accommodation, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Commander Agnew: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will provide hostel accommodation for the Women's Royal Naval Service ratings stationed at Newcastle-under-Lyme?

Mr. George Hall: There are two W.R.N.S. quarters at Newcastle-under-Lyme which between them house the majority of the W.R.N.S. personnel stationed at the local training establishment. The remainder are at present accommodated in approved lodgings, but the possibility of providing additional official quarters is already under examination.

Commander Agnew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of the provision of proper quarters for these "Wrens" is most urgent, as recourse recently had to be had to a billet which meant that a girl under 18 years of age had to sleep out and share a bed with her landlady?

Mr. Hall: I have no information about that, but I can say that less than a third of the personnel of the W.R.N.S. in this district are living outside hostels.

Commander Agnew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently I called at the W.R.N.S. headquarters in London and put this case to one of the officers there, who was most sympathetic and at once took remedial action? As the right hon. Gentleman controls the building of quarters and the provision of accommodation, will be inform himself as to the circumstances and see that this state of affairs is remedied on all future occasions?

Mr. Hall: Every precaution is taken to see that personnel are properly housed. If circumstances such as those described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are brought to the notice of the Admiralty, we will look into them and deal with them.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when Newcastle-under-Lyme became a port?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Executive Council (Unofficial Members)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, why the

Sierra Leone Government have decided not to follow the lead of the Gold Coast and Nigerian Governments in the appointment of African unofficial members to the Executive Council?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The Sierra Leone Government is in full sympathy with the desire for the appointment of Africans as unofficial members of the Executive Council, and accepts in principle the policy of inclusion of both African and European un-officials in this Council. But the Governor has felt unable to recommend the appointment of any unofficials, whether European or African, at the present time since owing to the operational importance of Freetown, the business of Government in the exceptional circumstances of the war is so closely connected with matters concerning defence and seurity.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform all Colonial Governments that we would welcome the appointment of unofficial African members to the Executive Council?

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many have been appointed?

Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question down.

Editor and Printer (Sentences)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the acting editor and printer of the "African Standard" newspaper of Sierra Leone, Messrs. Thomas and Willoughby, were recently sentenced to one year's imprisonment each upon a charge of criminal libel, instituted by the Superintendent of Prisons, for publishing authenticated reports of irregularities in the prison; and why the trials were by assessors, which method was denounced by Justice Webber, one-time Chief Justice of the Colony, and not by normal procedure?

Colonel Stanley: Mr. Thomas, proprietor and editor of the "African Standard," was sentenced in June, 1942, to one year's imprisonment for publication of a defamatory libel in the "African Standard" concerning the Superintendent of Prisons, Sierra Leone. Mr. Willoughby,


printer of the same newspaper, was sentenced on the same grounds at the same trial to a fine of £5 or one month's imprisonment. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. As the Attorney-General was satisfied that a fair and impartial trial by jury was unlikely in such a case, he applied to the Court under the provisions of the Sierra Leone Jurors' and Assessors' Ordinance for an order that the case should be tried by the Court with the aid of assessors instead of by a judge with jury. The Court, as required by the Ordinance, ordered accordingly.

Mr. Adams: Is it intended to extend the benefits of this novel form of procedure to this country?

Colonel Stanley: It is not a novel form of procedure. The Ordinance has been in existence for some time. There are occasions when it is clear that a fair trial could not otherwise be obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL AFFAIRS (UNITED STATES INTEREST)

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, tin view of the interest expressed in the United States of America, he will make it clear that he would welcome a tour of inspection of the principal British Colonies by a representative American delegation wishing to study and report on conditions, constitutional arrangements and future plans?

Colonel Stanley: I am fully aware of the interest in Colonial affairs now expressed in America. We are glad to have the presence in many of the Colonies of representatives, both civil and military, of the United States Services, who have unique opportunity of seeing for themselves local conditions of life, and development. I think that under war-time conditions and especially in view of the tremendous pressure of work in all administrations, such contacts are more likely to be of value than any formal tour as suggested by the hon. Member.

Major Petherick: Is it not the case that most people in this country do not object to or resent helpful and informed criticism about our Colonial administration and policy coming from Americans or others, but that they do object to and resent

uninformed criticism and vague charges of oppressive Imperialism coming from those who have never visited our Colonies and do not know the conditions on the spot?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that a great deal of this uninformed criticism is pro-Nazi propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL SERVICE (APPEALS)

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many appeals have been received or dealt with during the last 12 months by him from individuals or groups of European personnel and individuals or groups of non-European personnel, respectively, in the Colonial service; in how many cases in each class were the appeals rejected or the applicant informed that he could not intervene; and whether all appeals receive the personal consideration of himself or whether they are disposed of purely by the permanent officials of the Colonial Office?

Colonel Stanley: As no special record is kept by which appeals can readily be identified with particular office files, the collection of the information requested in the first and second parts of the Question would present considerable difficulty, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for me to provide it. Formal petitions from members of the Colonial Service are invariably seen by the Secretary of State, or by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on his behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARIBBEAN COMMISSION

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent of the American Government's participation in the British-United States of America Caribbean Commission; and whether the United States of America will contribute financially towards the development and welfare in the West Indies?

Colonel Stanley: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the United States Government participate equally in the Caribbean Commission. I have had an opportunity recently of conferring with the Joint Chairmen, Mr. Taussig and Sir Frank Stockdale, and I was delighted to observe the very cordial spirit of co-operation existing between them. The United States


Government do not contribute financially to development and welfare in the British West Indies.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (COLONIES)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what response has been received from Colonial Governments to his despatch of 5th June, 1941, suggesting the putting in hand of preparations for post-war reconstruction and promising the provision of any necessary key personnel?

Colonel Stanley: The circular despatch mentioned did hot call for specific replies, but was in the nature of a general direction. For an appreciation of the present situation I would refer to my reply to the Hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 20th January.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME SECRETARY (DEPARTMENTAL DUTIES)

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether, on joining the War Cabinet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister of Home Security has been relieved of any Departmental duties?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Commander Bower: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how a Minister already overburdened by the work of a double Department can possibly devote any time to those considerations of international politics and grand strategy which it is the duty of Members of the War Cabinet to deal with daily?

Mr. Attlee: I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend's ability to do these things.

Mr. George Griffiths: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there has been a question similar to this asked about other people who do not belong to my political kidney?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot give any' information on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (MAN-POWER)

Major Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state for each of

the three Services, respectively, the steps which have been taken to provide for the more effective use, substitution and transference of man-power and avoidance of wastage of personnel?

Mr. Attlee: As I said to my hon. and gallant Friend on Tuesday last week, man-power problems differ in the three Services as does the machinery for solving them. It is, I am afraid, impossible to deal with this matter within the limits of a Parliamentary Question and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would get in touch with the three Ministers concerned.

Major Lyons: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was put down in response to a direct invitation from him, as he could not answer on this matter when I raised it last week? Will he reconsider the matter and give me some kind of compendious answer?

Mr. Attlee: One cannot give a compendious answer on such a large subject. The matter is too large to be dealt with in Questions and answers across the Floor of the House.

Major Lyons: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that these improvements have been made, I accept his word, but am I not in Order in asking what he has in mind when he states the fact that improvements have been made?

Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that this matter was dealt with in a two days' Debate last week?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of inviting Sir William Beveridge to conduct an inquiry into the most effective means of preventing unemployment after the war?

Mr. Attlee: The prevention of unemployment cannot be dissociated from Government policy over the whole field of economic affairs. Examination of this matter must therefore form an integral part of the study of post-war policy by the Government, and it is undesirable at this stage that it should be entrusted to any single individual.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the wide experience and knowledge of Sir William Beveridge will be made use of in this connection?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member will realise that the experience of Sir William Beveridge has been made use of and is being made use of very fully by the Government.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that Sir William Beveridge had the supreme advantage of being an official at the Ministry of Labour during the long period of high unemployment which existed before the war?

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that the only way of preventing unemployment is by the socialisation of industry?

Mr. MacLaren: Is it present in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that Sir William Beveridge on three occasions has declared that he does not know what is the cause of unemployment and wishes other people to find out for him?

Oral Answers to Questions — U-BOAT WARFARE (INFORMATION)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to broadcast requests from the United States of America for fuller information as to U-boat attacks on Allied shipping; and whether he will arrange for a further statement to be made in an open session of Parliament that the public and our Allies may be more fully informed?

Mr. Attlee: I am aware that there is a general desire on both sides of the Atlantic, not excluding the German Reich, for more precise information on this subject. It would not be in the interests of the United Nations to accede to the request contained in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question.

Mr. Ammon: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that utterances by the First Lord of the Admiralty, have given rise to considerable disquiet, and surely all this must be known to the Germans? Cannot he arrange not only for a statement but for a discussion of the matter in the House?

Sir A. Southby: Is it not about time that the people of this country were fully informed of the peril in which they stand,

since the U-boat menace is the greatest danger at the present time?

Mr. Attlee: I think that intelligent people in this country are fully aware that the question of our sea communications and attacks on them is a matter of vital importance, but obviously it is quite impossible to give in public the details of our ways of coping with those attacks.

Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last weeks American and Canadian spokesmen have been giving definite facts and figures on this matter which seem to me to be telling the Germans as much as they would be told by statements here? Can we not have the same type of information as is given freely in the United States and in Canada?

Mr. Attlee: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Ammon: Has not the First Lord called attention to the fact that he has not all the necessary power in the Fleet Air Arm to meet this sort of thing? Cannot we discuss that matter?

Mr. Stokes: I have been telling the Government that for years.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Prime Minister whether he will form a special Ministry to plan and direct social security which will co-ordinate the existing Departments concerned with the same subject?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is, I think, substantially the same as the proposal for a Ministry of Social Security in the Report of Sir William Beveridge. This proposal is at present under review as part of the general examination of that Report which the Government have undertaken.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Would not the Government be immeasurably strengthened if Sir William Beveridge were to join them?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANK POLICY

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Production what experience of tanks in action had those officials who decided in, or prior to, June, 1942, that the A22 would prove an excellent fighting vehicle?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): The officials responsible for decisions on tank policy in June, 1942, were the then members of the Tank Board. No member of the Board at that time had personal experience of tanks in action, but all were in constant touch with fighting officers who had. The Tank Board receive direct reports from the Research Sections in the field, and I may add that the predictions by the Prime Minister and myself that the A22 would prove an excellent fighting vehicle are now confirmed by highly satisfactory reports which were received last week about the performance of these tanks in recent operations in Libya. Both the armour, the gun and the reliability are highly praised. The 6-pdr. gun gave good service, and in general the tanks made a very favourable impression on all the crews as well as on the troops co-operating with them.

Mr. Stokes: Who with previous tank experience in the field was consulted before that machine was used?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is quite a different question.

Mr. Stokes: It is on the Order Paper. I will put another Question down.

Miss Ward: Did the Tank Board consider that they had full power to initiate policy?

Mr. Lyttelton: I did not say they had full power.

Miss Ward: Did they consider that they had full power?

Commander Agnew: Is not a lot of time wasted in these useless inquests?

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Production what type of tank was coming off the production line in July, 1942, which had the necessary fire-power for the battles then raging?

Mr. Lyttelton: Tanks with 6-pounder guns.

Mr. Stokes: What tank was it? The right hon. Gentleman referred to it himself in the Debate in July.

Mr. Lyttelton: There was more than one type. I do not think I can give the types.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S SERVICES (OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE)

Group-Captain Wright: asked the Lord President of the Council whether any decision has been reached on the question of increasing the outfit allowances payable to officers of the women's Services following the increases announced last November for men officers?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir. It has been decided that officers of the women's Services, like officers of the men's Services, should receive an increase of £10 in the outfit allowance payable on first appointment to a commission, and that the tropical outfit allowance payable on first posting to a tropical station should be increased from £5, as at present, to £10. As in the case of officers of the men's Services, these increases take effect from 1st December last.

Mr. Butcher: How much of this will be covered by Income Tax?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Paper Supplies (Church Magazines)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied that the order relating to paper supplies is being strictly observed throughout the country; and whether he will inquire into the position, at certain places of which he has been informed, where a parish church magazine is printed containing the same amount of paper as in pre-war days, whilst in county Durham a parish magazine has been very severely reduced in size?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Church magazines are required to comply with the directions, issued every four months, prescribing the maximum quantities of paper which may be used for periodicals. I am making inquiries regarding the magazines of which my hon. Friend has given me particulars.

Mr. Murray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the printers are even stating that there is plenty of paper, and that statements like this are causing very great disturbance to people who have to conform with the Regulations?

Sir A. Duncan: That is all part of the matter into which we are making inquiries.

Manifesto, "A National Policy for Industry"

Mr. William Brown: asked the Minister of Supply whether Sir Nigel Campbell, Mr. Graham Cunningham, Sir Percy Mills and Sir Cecil Weir, employed in the Ministry of Supply as head of non-munitions supply industries division, controller general of munitions production, controller general of machine tools, and director general equipment and supplies, respectively, sought and obtained his permission before they signed the manifesto issued in November, 1942, and entitled "A National Policy for Industry"?

Sir A. Duncan: I am concerned with only three of the gentlemen referred to. In their case the answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that in the case of permanent Civil servants it would be regarded as a considerable offence for them to put their signatures to documents which might have relation to Government policy in their private capacity? Will he see that the same restrictions are imposed on war-time temporary Civil servants?

Sir A. Duncan: I regard this as a matter on which it was not necessary for them to ask my permission.

Mr. Brown: Is any business man who comes in a temporary capacity into the public service free to put his name to all sorts of documents which a permanent Civil servant cannot?

Sir A. Duncan: I was not speaking of all sorts of documents, but of the particular document referred to.

Tank Board

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply whether any change has been made in the personnel of the Tank Board since he last gave their names; and, if so, whether he will now state who are on the Tank Board and what has been their previous experience in design, production or the field?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. I will, with my Hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names and offices of the members of the Tank Board. With regard to the last part of the Question, while the members of the Tank Board possess extensive personal knowledge and experience, it is not as individuals that

they have a seat upon the Board but in virtue of their appointments and responsibilities. Their Departments are in a position to draw upon all the most up-to-date experience over the entire field.

Mr. Stokes: Has any member of the present Tank Board had any experience of tanks in action in the field?

Sir A. Duncan: The answer to that is "No," as individuals, but they all have at their disposal the fullest volume of the experience of those who have it.

Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it satisfactory that in a matter of this kind no one with practical experience in the field is on the Board able to pull his weight?

Sir A. Duncan: I draw a distinction between the Board and the facilities and knowledge available to the Board.

Following are the particulars:

Chairman: Commander E. R. Micklem, C.B.E., R.N. (Chairman of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle Division, Ministry of Supply).

War Office:

Lieutenant-General R. M. Weeks, C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C. (Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff).

Major-General J. F. Evetts, C.B., C.B.E., M.C. (Assistant Chief of the Imperial General Staff).

Major-General A. W. C. Richardson, D.S.O. (Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles).

Major-General E. B. Rowcroft, C.B. (Director of Mechanical Engineering).

Ministry of Supply:

Mr. Graham Cunningham (Controller-General of Munitions Production).

Mr. A. J. Boyd (Director-General of Fighting Vehicles (Production}).

Mr. Oliver Lucas (Director-General of Fighting Vehicles (Research and Development)).

U.S.A. Liaison:

Colonel G. A. Green (Mr. Harriman's Office).

Rumania (Pamphlet)

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been drawn to the publication in this country of a 20-page pamphlet, entitled "Why is the Rumanian Army Fighting?" by Mr. Iliescu, formerly Assistant Military Attaché at the Rumanian Embassy in London, in which he disparages our Russian Allies; whether the supply of paper for this purpose was officially approved, and whether he will arrange for steps to be taken to prevent similar wastage of paper in future, and ensure


that the printing trade refrains from assisting any other attempts to lessen the prestige of any of our fighting Allies?

Sir A. Duncan: I have not seen this pamphlet and so far as I have been able to trace no paper has been licensed specifically for its publication, but I am making inquiries.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.
Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Tinker: Yesterday the Chancellor mentioned the question of stabilisation of prices, but he did not cover it very much. In the amount of this Vote is any sum included for carrying on the stabilisation of prices of essential foodstuffs? In 1941 the right hon. Gentleman laid down a policy by which a sum of money was to be found by the Government to control prices. Last year he emphasised that policy again and said that the £125,000,000 which would be required for this purpose would have to be increased this year. Is anything being provided in the present Vote for the further control of prices? Recently there

has been an increase of 4d. per pound in the price of tea. I am wondering whether the Government have departed from their policy, and some of us are much perturbed about it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I can, I hope, give a satisfactory reply to my hon. Friend. When stabilisation was first dealt with I made a statement in my Budget speech setting out what the objects of the stabilisation policy were and giving an undertaking that so long as certain conditions were maintained I would, through the means of the finances of the State, maintain prices at the level that I then mentioned. That undertaking has been kept ever since. It is true that from time to time the prices of various commodities may vary, but if they vary at all, they have still to be within the terms of my undertaking so far as the general amount of prices is concerned. For instance, there may be an increase to-day in the price of tea owing to this or that circumstance, but that increase cannot be permitted, if my undertaking is to be maintained, if it upsets the general balance on the lines that I then laid down. As a matter of fact, to-day, notwithstanding the increase in the price of tea, the figures are much below the undertaking I gave. I hope that when I introduce the Budget I shall be able to give a review of how the matter has gone during the full period. My hon. Friend can feel satisfied that the undertaking of the Government has been fully maintained.

Mr. Tinker: When the right hon. Gentleman is balancing the thing will he watch to see that any increased price is not put on commodities which the poor people have to buy?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — VOTE OF CREDIT, 1943

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order


and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [26th January]

Resolutions reported:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £900,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Captain Crookshank and Mr. Assheton.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL,

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three and one thousand nine hundred and forty-four"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the appointment of a Minister of Town and Country Planning; to provide for the transfer to that Minister of certain statuory functions; and to provide for the establishment of statutory Commissions for the purpose of exercising such functions in relation to the use and development of land in England and Wales as may hereafter be determined, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary to the Minister not exceeding five thousand pounds and, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, of any other expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act including any other remuneration payable thereunder.

Resolution agreed to.

MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment and functions of Minister of Town and Country Planning.)

Major Petherick: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "of", and to insert "for".
This is the first of a series of Amendments the object of which is to change the title of the Ministry. I do not wish to weary the Committee by repeating the reasons for my objection to the inclusion of the word "Planning" which I brought forward yesterday, but I would like to make one or two additions to what I said then. I do hot know who originated the title "Planning" or why it was used in the 1941 Act, but I fear that the inclusion of this word in the name of a Ministry, as opposed to the Title of an Act, where it has some specific and ad hoc meaning, may be that it will become more or less a part of the constitution and may seem to commit this country to planning not for ad hoc measures but planning in general. I do not think that could be claimed by the Government as a mandate granted to them by the country as a whole. Therefore, I feel that it would be safer and more advisable to remove the word "Planning" from the title of the Ministry.
The difficulty, of course, is to find a suitable alternative title, as was pointed out yesterday by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning. I have searched my mind, and I daresay some Members of the Government have searched their minds, to find a suitable title, and I suggest in these Amendments that the title should be "Ministry of Town and Country" omitting the word "Planning." I admit that this is not a very desirable title, because it appears to infringe upon the duties of the Ministry of Agriculture and possibly also those of the Ministry of Health, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill will see, between now and the Report stage, whether he cannot think of a better title. I should possibly be out of Order if I went on to discuss another possible alternative which was suggested to me late yesterday


evening, which is "Ministry of Building Control." That is a perfectly honest title, because that is exactly what the Ministry is to do, whereas the name "Ministry of Town and Country Planning" is to my mind a dishonest and rather vague title.

Commander Bower: I beg to support the Amendment. I do not wish to recapitulate the very sound arguments, put forward in the Second Reading Debate yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the mover of this Amendment, but it does seem to me that if we include the word "Planning" in the title of the Ministry, it will give the general impression throughout the Ministry that it is there for the purpose of planning for the sake of planning. That is something to which my hon. Friends and I object very strongly. We are all for ad hoc planning, but we do not want this new Ministry to sit down and say, "Now, boys, we have all to start planning. We must produce plans at all costs." If they are prepared to produce plans where plans are needed, I am sure they deserve all the encouragement they can get, but my hon. Friends and I fear that there will be a great deal of unnecessary interference if this idea of planning for the sake of planning is allowed to get a hold. I do not think that the Government themselves are very happy about this title. I think the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend is worthy of consideration, and I venture to hope that between now and the Report stage it will receive consideration.

Mr. John Dugdale: I oppose this Amendment, not because I think the wording proposed by the Amendments has great significance, but because the idea underlying the Amendments is the same as that put forward yesterday by some hon. Members, namely, that planning is abhorrent and that the new Ministry should do no planning at all. I hope that this Ministry will carry out a number of plans, that it will be a positive Ministry and not a purely negative one, and for that reason I oppose any proposal designed to limit its planning capacity or suggesting that it is not designed to be a Ministry of Planning.

Mr. Mander: I do not feel altogether happy about the

use of the word "Planning" as a description of the Ministry, though not for the reasons given by my hon. and gallant Friends opposite. There are various types of planning, and this particular planning is only in a very limited sphere. Many people feel that it will be necessary in the world of to-morrow to have a certain amount of conscious economic planning of the life of the nation if we are to avoid unemployment. That appears to be inevitable, but I feel that if we describe this Ministry as a Ministry of Planning, there will be confusion in the public mind as to what is meant, and if it is possible to find some other word, I think the proposal would be worth consideration.

Mr. MacLaren: I hope the speech to which the Committee has just listened will be noted, because it indicates the hon. Member's mentality. Although he sits on the Liberal benches, the whole trend of his thought is towards hamstringing democracy. Had he been present yesterday, he would have heard the Minister in charge of the Bill clearly explaining to the House the difficulty of particularising the word "Planning" as against the general use of the word "planning" in reference to post-war conditions. But I think the raising of this Amendment serves a rather useful purpose. I speak now with considerable experience in this matter. This country—England in particular—has a peculiar makeup, in this sense, that in Scotland we can hide ugliness behind mountains, but in England, when you put some horrible erection on the countryside, it can be seen for miles around. If there is anything in this country calling out to heaven, it is the need that something should be done by a responsible Minister in the Government to put an end to this perpetuation of ugliness in this lovely country of ours.
Before this war I, and a very few other people in this country—not that I am claiming any virtue because of it—used to wonder whether Englishmen had lost all sense of the beauty of England. England was being torn to shreds and the countryside blotted with these horrible things which we have seen menacing not merely the beauty of England but the safety of England for miles around this octopus which is called London. It is clear, I am afraid, that whatever one may say in this House or outside it regarding belief in liberty, we are as yet


so far removed from civilisation that liberty can be spoken of only as an ideal for a long time to come, so long anyhow as there are powerful vested interests using this land to make money out of it, with an utter disregard of the consequences. Therefore, it is necessary that a Minister should be empowered to deal with this matter and to have an overruling hand in regard to the erection of buildings throughout the country and the planning of towns and villages.
I do not want it to go out that the Minister will be a hard and fast bureaucrat. I take it that he will have something like regional representation or administrative officers who will have due regard to the aesthetic considerations in each area so far as building is concerned. I hope he will not sit in an office in Whitehall, a drawing office from which drawings will be issued so that every building in the State will take that form. I hope that this will be an elastic kind of administration and that due regard shall be paid to localities and local people be able to have some influence, while the Ministry has an oversight and right of criticism to check irregularity and ugliness from prevailing. I thank those who have put forward this Amendment, as it has given one an opening to make a point in support of the Government for not accepting it.

Mr. Denman: I think the Committee feels objection to the word "Planning". It is absolutely confusing to have a word which has a different sense according to whether or not you spell it with a capital letter. I suggest that a simpler title would be "Minister of Land Use". That is what I believe to be our real wish. We wish to have a Ministry that shall exercise a simple control such as Parliament may give it over the use of British land. I think that is the simplest and most expressive title that can be found.

Mr. Jewson: Names are sometimes quite important, in spite of the words which are often quoted from our national poet. If we are to judge the appropriateness of the name of our Minister, we need to know clearly what powers the Minister is to exercise. I should like to know whether it is intended that the powers of the Minister shall extend from shore to shore or from sea to sea, so that he will take under his wing such

very important questions as the protection and reclamation of land from the sea, more commonly referred to as coast erosion.

The Chairman: That point ought to be raised on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. David Adams: It is clear that the promoters of this Amendment cannot have been present yesterday when the Minister spoke, or the terrible fear they had that we are about to intervene in an attempt to make a better Britain would not have assailed them, as it evidently has. The Minister made it clear that
such topics as the location of industry, the prevention of cyclical depressions, education, public health, social services, agricultural policy, the development of roads, harbours and ports, and last, but by no means least, financial policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1943; col. 419, Vol. 386.]
are expressly excluded from the powers of the new Minister. Whether we like it or not, we are in for an era of National economic planning. It appears to my judgment that we ought to have been preparing long since for widespread planning for the nation. No one who looks round the country can deny that lack of town and country planning has been one of the gravest misfortunes to this country. Local authorities have been compelled to pay fabulous prices to rectify lack of planning on the part of their forbears. There was a recent case in Newcastle where a corner site was purchased at a figure approaching £200 per square yard. No one in the city council could justify such a figure, but as the owner demanded that figure it had to be paid. That kind of thing ought to belong to the past, and fair prices ought to be guaranteed. A town and country planning Minister is one of the most urgently required at the present time, and nothing should be done to stultify his powers.

Mr. Silkin: It is easy to dispose of the Amendment by saying that if it were carried the Minister would become the Minister for Town and Country, an expression which is meaningless. The mover recognised in his speech that the term is much wider than "Minister for Town and Country Planning." I submit that the amended Title would have no meaning at all. The purpose of the Bill is to take over powers and duties under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932,


and it is appropriate that the Minister should be described as the Minister for Town and Country Planning. Some criticism might have been levelled at the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, at the time when it was passed because of its somewhat cumbersome title, but the term has assumed a clear connotation since that time, and anyone who uses it recognises its significance. I realise that the Title is somewhat long and cumbersome, and the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday suggested it would be welcome if anyone could find a shorter title which would give the correct connotation, but it would have to be a Title that described the duties which the Minister is taking over. "Minister for Town and Country" does nothing of that kind. In the absence of any better suggestion I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

The Minister Without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I do not think the idea put forward in the Amendment is good. I said yesterday that I was not happy about the title because of the ambiguity of the word "Planning," and it seemed that the best course was to put in an adjective before "Planning," namely, "Town and Country." We have the support of the Act of 1909, called the "Housing and Town Planning Act," of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and of the names of many institutions, such as town planning institutions and so on. I think they make the matter quite plain. As to the Amendment to leave out "of" and put in "for;" I am surprised at its coming from the source it does, as I have always looked upon the mover as a pillar of orthodoxy and traditionalism. For years we have talked about the Minister "of"—Secretary of State for the Colonies, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but Minister of Health, Minister of Labour and Minister of Food. I do not like the suggestion of leaving out "of" and putting in "for." Secondly, I do not like the idea of leaving out the word "Planning." To call the new Minister the Minister for Town and Country is surely to escape from a vague phrase to something much more vague. I do not know whether that would embrace suburbs. You might as well call him the Minister for England and Wales. As to the other suggestion, that he should be called the Minister for Building

Control, a very important part of his duty is to say that certain areas of land shall not have any building on them at all. To take another suggestion, "the Minister of Land Use." That seems to go back to the old fallacy of confusing two forms of planning, because in considering land use one may have to consider both aspects of planning. Let me give an illustration. The question arises whether a particular piece of land shall or shall not be used for, say, a new steel works. Obviously strategical questions may arise as to whether the right location has been chosen, and the question of economics as to whether a new steel works is needed or not might also arise. These questions entirely transcend local considerations and aesthetic considerations and the like. Therefore, the term "Minister of Land Use" is too vague a title. Having lived with this subject a good many months, and having been advised on the difficulty by all sorts of people, I have failed to get any suggestions for a Title better than the one we have used in this Bill, namely, "Town and Country Planning," which at least is a phrase now hallowed by some considerable period of time. In these circumstances I do not think I can accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take the view that part of the Minister's functions will be to decide such questions as whether we require further steel works or not?

Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir, it certainly would not be. That is the point I tried to make, that if you called the Minister the "Minister of Land Use" it might lead people erroneously to suppose that that would be part of his functions.

Mr. Pickthorn: The Minister now seems to me to be disclaiming too much. He now seems to be suggesting that it would be no business of the new Minister whether there should be a steel works on a particular piece of land or not; but it is surely expected that he should see that whoever make the decision do take the land factor into account in considering the steel works location. I do not really care a hoot whether this Amendment is passed or not, but I am bound to say the whole of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument against the phrase "Land utilisation" seems to me to fall to the ground.

Sir W. Jowitt: Of course, it would be for the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, once you had made- up your mind that the steel works should be built there, to consider the question of construction and so on, but behind that, before it is decided whether it is to be put there or not, there lie other questions with which he is not directly concerned. If he were described as the "Minister of Land Use" it would give the impression that he was in charge of the whole of these questions, and he is not.

Mr. Pickthorn: My understanding both of language and of logic is still different from that of the Minister; I do not want to provoke him into talking out his own Bill, but after trying to explain this several times, he still leaves us where we were. I understood, and I think we understood from the Second Reading discussion, that the business of the Ministry now to be established was to see that land is properly utilised. Of course there are all sorts of other connections which come into his consideration, every sort of policy is connected with every, other sort of policy; but if a steel works is to be put up, the business of this Minister, we thought, must be to ensure consideration whether the particular land proposed can be spared from agriculture, or railway development or whatever else. If that is not the business of this Ministry, I have been misled, and I honestly think the whole House has been misled throughout the discussion. If that is his business, I really think that the Front Bench ought to be able to put up a better argument against this Amendment, about which, in itself, I repeat I do not care a hoot.
Now that the Minister has provoked me to my feet, I would like to say a word about the last speech but one from the opposite side. We were told that whether we like it or not, we are now in for an era of planning. That raises the largest possible philosophical questions. I am not quite sure whether all of them would be in Order on this narrow ground of "for" instead of "of"; I think most of them would be. I do ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have this passion for this particular word "planning" at the moment to be a little careful not to press it too far; because the whole philosophy of progress and democracy, two things for neither of which I care over-much—but I do care and they care more—that

philosophy has been on the assumption that you must find out the wills of individuals and that after finding out their wills and whether there are more or fewer of them this way or that, accordingly you can control the future. If we are now to be told that whether we like it or not this or that will happen, hon. gentlemen who use that argument are likely to find that they excite more opposition than co-operation and that they may get things they want much more slowly than by inviting us to want them too.

Sir Percy Harris: This point requires clearing up. It is rather an important matter, requiring clear thinking. The trouble is the limitation of the English language. The word "planning" is undoubtedly used to cover a lot of sins of omission and commission, and we might be led to assume that this Bill is going to do too much or, on the other hand, that it is going to do nothing at all. Actually this new Ministry is only to be a part contributor to the development of our country after the war. We want to prevent haphazard development of the countryside and the kind of towns that sprang into existence during the last hundred years. As I understand it, all this Ministry is to do is to take the planning powers that were originally in the Ministry of Health and then transferred to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and are now transferred for the third time to a new Department to have the undivided attention of one Minister who is to co-ordinate the work of the various Departments concerned in the economic development of the country. The instance of a steel works has been given by the Minister in charge of the Bill. What I understand is to happen in the future, if it is found necessary to have a steel works, will be to decide whether it is desirable to dump that steel works along Lake Winder-mere or in a rural area or in a crowded area of London. There the Minister will come in and exercise his judgment and decide wherever it is in the general interest of the country to take that particular steel works.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who will decide whether we are to have a new steel works?

Sir P. Harris: It is not for the new Minister to decide whether we shall have a new steel works. I presume that will be


decided upon by some particular industry. It will be the job of the Minister to consider the whole of the development of an area and prevent the destruction of a housing district, of a suburb, by putting down a steel works in the area or in the countryside, as the case may be. Really what we are setting up is a Ministry of Development. I think "Ministry of Planning." is probably the right term. Generally local authorities understand what is meant by that. Really what we are setting up is a Ministry of Development.

Sir Stanley Reed: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend in his Amendment; but I think his real difficulty will arise when he comes to bring his mind to a form of alternative title. What we are concerned with is not the name of the Ministry but what the Ministry is going to- do; and I should like to endorse the point raised by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). We have to make up our minds whether we are to have uncontrolled development, which has stricken some parts of our countryside beyond the possibility of repair for generations or to have controlled development with due regard for social and aesthetic considerations. When I go round the countryside I am reminded of a remark made by Mr. G. K. Chesterton, who said:
The Hun destroyed what he hated. We are destroying what we love, and that is the beauty of our land.
I want to see further prevention of the destruction of what we love, putting the name of the organisation which is to protect us in a secondary place. As the question of a steel works has been imported, when an industrialist is putting down works, what are his main considerations? Putting aesthetic considerations aside, solely the economic point of assembly of raw materials and the distribution of his manufactures. If a steel works should be wanted, that point might be the middle of Savernake, or the middle of the Forest of Dean or the middle of the most beautiful glen in the Highlands. It will, I hope, be one of the main functions of the new Minister to examine industrial schemes from the social and aesthetic points of view, and to advise where they are to be established and where not. In one of the most beautiful villages in Buckinghamshire a

cement works was put down. That locality has been destroyed from an aesthetic point of view for all time.
Now take the question of housing. It is almost inconceivable, yet true, that in one of the most attractive and historic towns in England when a scheme for housing extension was under consideration—a proposal that an architect should be engaged at a small fee to do the designing was turned down on the ground that the surveyor was competent to do the work. Even if planning means more bureaucratic control, then I will accept it with the greatest pleasure and enthusiasm, because I know, and everybody knows who is moving about the country, that it is absolutely essential if we are to preserve our greatest heritage, the beauty of our land. The beauty of certain lands is the beauty of nature. The beauty of England is man-made. Much of the beauty of England came through the Enclosure Acts and the planting of our woodlands by the great landowners. That which is man-made can by man be destroyed—has been destroyed, is being destroyed. That destruction we want to prevent. I see my hon. and gallant Friend's point of view, though I do not envy him the task of framing a satisfactory alternative title. But it is the work of the Ministry which interests me, call it by whatever name we may, so long as that work is done.

Major Markham: I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) that it is immaterial what the Minister is called, and that what is material is the question of what his duties are to be. I will invite the attention of the Committee to what may well become the most urgent and the most pressing problem at the conclusion of this war: the question of, not the development but the undevelopment of a great many military sites. We shall have to consider what is to be done to vast acreages which are now used for aerodromes, training camps, and so on. Will it be the responsibility of the Minister to see whether this aerodrome or that training camp should go, or is he to be subsidiary to the Air Minister or the War Minister?

The Chairman: That might arise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but it certainly does not arise on this Amendment.

Major Markham: I will keep my remarks, then, for that occasion. I will only say that I very much approve this principle of planning, and that I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I have no fears at all about the word "Planning." It is perfectly well known; it has existed for a long time; and all depends on how the planning is carried out. At the head of this Ministry we have three lawyers. Lawyers at times, very rightly, incline to compromise. I trust that when it is a case of preserving the countryside they will not compromise, but will act and get things done. I represent a part of the country where the beauty of large areas is being destroyed because we have not had any planning; so I hope we shall not argue too much about the title of the Ministry but support the principle of the Ministry, and accept the present title as a very suitable one. I considered the possibility of such a title as Minister for the Control of Land and Buildings. One could think of a dozen other possibilities. But, on the whole, thinking of the future of this country and of the planning of our town and country, I could not possibly raise any good objection against calling the Minister a Minister for Town and Country Planning.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that we should keep the word "Planning." It would be a disaster if the impression went out from this Debate that we on these Benches were, as a whole, opposed to the word "Planning." The introductory speeches on this Amendment have been to that effect. While I recognise that the title of the Minister is rather cumbersome, and that it might be better if we could shorten it, I hope that we shall retain the word "Planning." The people of this country are only too anxious to see some degree of planning in future introduced into our affairs.

Mr. McEntee: The Minister threw out a challenge yesterday to anybody to suggest a better title than that which the Bill now has. I spent a more or less sleepless night trying to think of a better title, but I failed; and

I think that all Members who have taken part in the discussion have failed also. The discussion reminds me of a boy in my constituency who, writing an essay on planning, said, "The theory of planning as I understand it is not quite well understood." The discussion to-day would lead one to believe that, the theory of-planning as most of us understand it is not quite well understood. The power of the new Minister is- defined very clearly in the Bill. Would anybody say that the word "Planning" is not better understood by the average person in the country than any other word we could find in substitution? It is understood in local authorities and in this House, and it is understood by ordinary persons, particularly when we have heard so much in recent years about five-year plans and other plans. It merely means that the land which all of us desire to preserve and use for the best possible purposes, in the best possible manner, shall be planned, instead of being used by any person for his or her profit irrespective of whether it is convenient or in the interests of other persons. The word "Planning" is, I think, the only word which will reasonably meet the wishes of everybody in the House, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the Amendment, and to let us retain a title which at least gives to the new Ministry some meaning, which otherwise it would not have. If you call it the Ministry of Town and Country, what possible meaning can that have? It might mean that the new Minister, if you called him the Minister of Town and Country, would be a much greater man than the Prime Minister, with greater powers than anybody else could have. He would apparently have power to do anything which he desired in town and country. That is not what is intended. His powers are strictly limited, and I think the word "Planning" should be left in the Bill, as it is the only word which can describe what his functions are.

Major Petherick: After the eloquent and, indeed, emotional, appeal of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), I must ask leave in a moment to withdraw the Amendment, particularly as the hon. Member has been awake all night thinking about it. I would not take away any of the powers of the Minister. I hope that he will see that the countryside is not spoilt, as it has been


in the past. But the fact that since 1909 the word "planning" has been used in Acts of Parliament did not impress me very much. It is only when the matter becomes a constitutional one that I am relatively disturbed. I hope that, as there have been a number of appeals to my right hon. and learned Friend from hon. Members all over the House who have shown that they are not happy about this title and the word "Planning," he will between now and the Report stage reconsidered the rather stiff-necked attitude which, if I may say so, he has shown to-day. There is no doubt that it would be possible to find a title which would satisfy most Members and if we would only think about it a little before the next stage is reached, we might come to some agreement.

Viscountess Astor: Does the hon. and gallant Member not think that if the word "planning" had been used after the last war it might have prevented some of the appalling tragedies which have occurred?

Major Petherick: It all depends what the planning is. If you had had a wise plan, things might have been different. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I was not certain whether to call the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), or not, because it seemed to have been covered by the previous Debate. If the Amendment raises a new point, perhaps the hon. Member will explain.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "securing," to insert "vigour."
The arguments for this Amendment are very different from the arguments on the title of the Minister. Here we are concerned not merely with the title of the Minister, but with the duties the Minister is to discharge. Under my Amendment, the Minister would
be charged with the duty of securing vigour, consistency, and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land…
Are his duties to be as in the Bill, or do we want to have further duties? I agree

entirely with my right hon. Friend opposite in what I understood his speech to convey yesterday, that the duties assigned to the Ministry are in themselves inadequate. Consistency and continuity are no doubt necessary, but a Minister charged with those objectives only will not get very far. I thank the Minister, by the way, for using the word "consistency" rather than "co-ordination." The word "co-ordination" arouses a certain feeling of nausea in this House. "Continuity," on the other hand, is a dangerous word. A policy may or may not be on right lines. If it is on wrong lines, to charge a Minister with the duty of continuing it, or of seeing that it is continued by other Departments, is exceedingly dangerous. If you want a specific example, consider the existing policy of the development and use of land laid down in Statutes. Clearly, a proposal such as was envisaged in the Uthwatt Report, for the State purchase of development rights, however meritorious, is not a continuation of that national policy: it is an exceedingly important and interesting change. Is this new Minister to be charged with the duty of preventing any such proposal as the purchase of development rights being introduced?
However that may be, and coming to the particular word I propose to introduce, I am raising the serious point of whether we are going to give the Minister the duty of providing a motive force in this national policy. The national policy must be worked out by a number of different Ministers. That is common ground. Is there to be no Minister to whom Parliament says, "It is your business to see that a policy for the use and development of our land is actively pursued"? I chose the word "vigour" after some thought. A great array of possible words passed before me, like "vitality," "speed," "energy," and "drive," or to use a phrase of the last war, "push and go," or, perhaps better than any, "leadership" in framing this policy. Are not such qualities to be exercised by this new Minister, or are they to reside in some other Department? I confess that the word I really wanted was "ginger." I refrained from putting that down only because we all know that if you attempt to place in an Act of Parliament a word which everyone understands, the lawyers will at once rise and tell you that in the eyes of the law the word does not mean


what everybody else knows that it does mean. That being so, I did not put it down.
But if the Minister would prefer "ginger," and add a sentence that "in this section the word 'ginger' shall be deemed to include energy, speed and drive," and the other virtues I have mentioned, I shall be very charmed to accommodate him. But it is a real problem that is here dealt with. To whom does Parliament wish to entrust the duty of supplying this motive force? The answer is important, because the Government have a very bad record in this matter. I am not blaming the Minister or any other Department, but the Government as a whole have simply failed to provide any vigour and drive in the formulation of this policy. Unless we allocate to some one Minister the prime duty of securing a decision as to how our land is to be used and developed, I see no reason to suppose that we shall progress more rapidly in the future than we have hitherto. Just a year ago we were told by the Government that they had accepted some recommendations from the Barlow Report, such as the dispersal of industries from congested, areas and "the encouragement of a reasonable balance of industrial development," matters affecting other Departments but also concerning land use. Up to now, last year's Bill and the present Bill are the only fruits we have been allowed to gather from the many excellencies of the Barlow Report. With parallel exertions one can suppose that by 1947 we might be allowed a national park under the Scott Report, and perhaps a little later, the interim control of development from the Uthwatt Report, and so on. The thing can be endless. The legislation about this land use really does not brook this delay.
I would like, in conclusion, to read a letter I have received from a responsible local government official who is charged with the duties of developing his district. He says "we cannot even begin to deal with the problems in the replanning of large cities as these are all contingent on the initial questions as to the dispersal of industry and population and the limitation in the growth of large towns. Even after some pronouncement is made on these vital questions there will be such an enormous lot of work to do in replanning and in preparing the way to redevelopment

that it is essential that this work should be commenced as soon as possible." The only criticism of that letter is in the use of the word "pronouncement." We want not merely Government pronouncements before we can get on with this job but proper legislation upon which the local authorities can begin a firm structure of redevelopment. That, therefore, is my case. As I say, I am not blaming the Minister the least bit that he has not himself been able to produce the legislation required. But we do not need a Minister capable of preparing and producing the necessary legislation for that development and we must give him authority to act with vigour and urgency in relation to the other Ministers with whom he has to work in common.

Mr. Tinker: It appears that the mover of the Amendment desires to drive the Government faster, but I think he has wasted a lot of time on a very small matter. He could surely have spoken on the Second Reading, and we could have got along with the work of the Committee. When we pass a Bill the intention of the House of Commons is that the Measure shall go forward with every expedition.

Mr. Denman: I do not think that my hon. Friend could suggest to me any other Measure in which we have instructed a Minister to frame a policy in connection with some specific work. It is a completely new principle. We are asking a Minister to assist in framing a policy and are not indicating what power he has in relation to the whole business.

Mr. Tinker: When the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it is the intention that it should be put into effect as soon as possible. I really think that it has been a waste of time in putting down this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to add:
and other functions with respect to the allocation of material and labour.
The purpose which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) and I have in putting down this Amendment is to seek information and, if possible, an assurance. One of the purposes of this new Ministry will be so to plan the


country that houses may be built in the proper place and in the proper way, but the assumption underlying all that is, that houses shall be built in extraordinarily large numbers. I do not know what the numbers are now, but I have heard estimates ranging up to and above 2,000,000 new houses. That is said to be the need of the country at least after the war, and clearly, this new Ministry is going to display the greatest possible interest in that new development. The first Clause of the Bill proposes to transfer to the new Ministry certain powers now exercised by the Ministry of Works and Planning. One of the powers at present exercised by that Ministry, in association with the Ministry of Labour, is to allocate the use of housing material and the labour needed for that purpose.
My hon. Friend and I would like to know something more about the joint committee which allocates these two essentials to the building of houses. It is plain at the moment, when the Government, as my hon. Friend said yesterday, are practically the only users of these materials and labour, that that power should rest with the Minister of Works and Planning, and it is not very difficult for the Ministry to exercise these powers properly. After the war there will be a great number of different demands for labour and material for building houses. Local authorities will be potential users to a great extent, private enterprise will be a user, and Government Departments will be users. The situation with which we are faced is—and this is the doubt in the mind of hon. Friends and myself—that a local authority, say, the L.C.C. or any other, acquires land for a great new housing estate, and it needs also labour and material. In peace-time the local authority goes to the Ministry of Health, and all these questions are settled there and then, and they decide whether a particular plan shall be carried out here or there, and the questions of labour and material are easily solved. Now, when the local authority comes along after the war, it will have to obtain from the Ministry of Health centres for building, and presumably obtain from the new Ministry sanction to build the new buildings at that place in accordance with the new plan, and, in addition to all that, will have to go to some other Department, to the Ministry of Works and Planning in associa-

tion with the Ministry of Labour and say, "Please, having satisfied all other plans, will you give us permission (a) to use labour, and (b) to obtain materials?"
Would it not be wise for that great power, now resting jointly with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Works and Planning, not to be transferred somewhere else? In any case, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us what has happened concerning that committee. What does it do? What are the function and purpose of the committee when this Act is in operation, and when after the war we apply ourselves to the problem of building 2,600,000 new houses? In the Debate yesterday a warning was given that if this new Bill, when it becomes an Act, places further obstacles in the way of building these hundreds of thousands of new houses, the Government will be doomed. If my hon. Friend can assure us that under the system now in operation, and apparently to be continued after the war, that allocation of material and labour will not be used in a sense against the development of houses, I shall be satisfied. When the question was put yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary rather rolled off by saying that labour would be left to the Ministry of Labour. That is not the point at all. This committee now sitting will be able to say whether building labour is to be used for building houses or for building cinemas, new railways, or new steel works. That is a great authority in the hands of the Ministry of Labour in association with the Ministry of Works and Planning. I should have thought that the Department best qualified to make that allocation is the Department directly responsible for building houses, namely, the Ministry of Health, but apparently it is to rest with the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour naturally has an interest in labour but I claim that it does not know, and cannot possibly know whether building labour is better used on that kind of building or on some other kind of building. These are the very serious doubts in our minds and if the right hon. Gentleman can reassure us we shall be very happy.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I second the Amendment. It appears to us to be idle to start off a new Bill with a great opportunity and at the same time leave behind, in the Department from which it comes, certain powers which


might frustrate the work of planning. Anyone who has had experience knows that it is difficult to get things done with one Department, and where you get two Departments, you experience more delay, but where you get three Departments in conflict nothing is ever done.

Mr. Tinker: Is this inside information?

Sir G. Shakespeare: It is absolutely inside information.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): That was pre-war: I have not heard it since.

Sir G. Shakespeare: It could be confirmed in an unofficial manner by any member of the Government sitting on that bench. Therefore, we want an assurance that the Minister should be given a fair chance, and whether I represented a local authority or wished to build a hospital or anything else, I ought not to have to go through this extraordinary procedure of going to three different Departments, and finally find the Office of Works and Planning, which has nothing whatever to do with it, saying, "The labour shall be allocated to a hospital, but it shall not be allocated to a certain school." The matter of priorities after this war will be of the utmost importance, and I suggest that the Prime Minister and an inner circle of the Cabinet should lay down what are to be the priorities—hospitals, schools, Government Departments, houses and the like. It would put the Minister and his very knowledgeable Parliamentary Secretary on matters of housing in a totally invidious position if they had to decide the rival merits of various priorities, all of which may be urgent. I would like an assurance that this point will be considered. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), in replying to the Debate, fried to ride away with the frivolous remark that the Ministry of Labour was responsible for labour. Of course it is, but that is not the point we are making.

Mr. Bossom: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not accept this Amendment. I have great sympathy with the mover and seconder in the point of view they have raised. I wonder whether hon. Members realise that for many buildings in London no less than seven different permits are necessary

before they can be built. But it is not appropriate that an Amendment like this should be used to interfere, for a deep principle is involved. The number of permits required to get a building built, should be considered as a whole and be looked into, and one application made to cover all essential requirements for permits, and I do not think this is the appropriate time to do it.

Mr. McEntee: I also hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, although I agree with what has been said by the mover and seconder. I have had considerable experience of going to various Ministries for sanction for housing, but this Amendment is far too wide. It would appear to give control to the new Ministry over the whole functions of the allocation of material and labour. If the new Minister had such functions allocated to him, he could not give time to the actual job for which the Ministry is being created—the planning and determination of how our land should be used. After all, the allocation of labour obviously must be left, in some respects at any rate, under the control of the Ministry of Labour. That is its function and what it was set up for. As to material, who can say now what will be available after the war? It would be unwise until we know what material will be available to say how it shall be allocated. I imagine it will not be allocated for small orders such as six houses, one cinema or one shop, but will be allocated to the Ministry of Health in regard to a programme of 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 houses, or whatever number is required. Then, consideration will have to be given to the amount of material and the quantity of sufficiently skilled labour available at the time.
I happen to know more about timber than any other building material, and it must be apparent to everybody that there is a tremendous waste of timber in Russia by the Germans, who have obtained temporary control of territory and who have been using timber for making roads, etc. Millions of tons have been destroyed, and there is bound to be a shortage of timber for a long time. In addition to that, Sweden has practically been cleared of timber by the Germans for their own use, and probably Norway and Finland as well. As a result such timber as we have after the war will have to be brought long distances, from Canada or from tropical countries such as India, if new hard woods


come into use. If that is to be done, I do not think the staff of the Ministry or the Ministry itself is the proper authority. However, I think some step will have to be taken, as indicated by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, to simplify the method of getting sanction for the building of houses, although what they are suggesting now is far too wide.

Sir W. Jowitt: I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I do not suppose the Mover or Seconder expected that I could. It would be quite impossible to transfer to this poor little Department, which will have a staff of only some 120 people, the immense task which would be here imposed, a task which, under the terms of this Amendment, is left completely vague. On the other hand, I have here a long essay which enables me to describe exactly what the system is to-day in relation to other Departments, but it does not really bear on this Bill at all, and probably the Mover and Seconder will be content if I say that the forceful observations they have made will be duly noted. Although we cannot possibly contemplate interfering with the powers and functions of those other Departments, we realise that everything that can be done should be done in order to make the necessity of applying for all permits and licences as simple and as expeditious as possible.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of that assurance, I would like to withdraw the Amendment, although I should explain that this was the only way, within the ruling of the Chair, that we could get this matter raised. We did not desire that these powers should be transferred to the new Minister, but we were anxious to bring the point to his notice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Additional provisions as to transfer of functions to the Minister.)

The Chairman: There is an Amend-meat—a proposed new Clause—on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas), and I suggest to him that this is the proper place to move it. If he will move

it at the beginning of line 39, to insert the words of his new Clause and add the word "and" at the end of it, then I think it will be in the correct place.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, at the beginning, to insert:
There shall be transferred to the Minister of Town and Country Planning the control and administration of—

(a) the Ordnance Survey from the President of the Board of Agriculture;
(b) the Land Registry from the Lord Chancellor and"

I am very grateful, Colonel Clifton Brown, for the guidance you have given me in this matter. I do not want to repeat all I said yesterday on this subject, when I went into it at a fair length, but with your permission I will briefly summarise the reasons for this Amendment. The Minister is taking over the functions of town planning from the Ministry of Works and Buildings, formerly held by the Ministry of Health, and I felt that he should go further and take under his control the Royal Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry. I should explain again that the Ordnance Survey is at present a sort of Cinderella service at the Ministry of Agriculture. I communicated with the Ministry of Agriculture some time ago suggesting that this step should be taken but, like all Ministries, they evidently did not want any of their powers to be taken from them. The Land Registry is under the control of the Lord Chancellor. It is my opinion that the new Ministry which is being set up should have control of these two other Departments.
As I have said, I will not burden the Committee with my arguments of yesterday but will summarise some of the reasons in the following way. The economic planning of the country must be related to geography, and there, of course, comes in at once the Ordnance Survey. The maps and plans of the country, according to the Davidson Report of 1938, have for a long time been in arrear. Considerable economy would result from amalgamation of these Departments. Town planning and land registration depend to some extent on the Ordnance Survey. Another reason is that the present position of these Departments does not lead to co-ordination, except at considerable expense of money and a waste of time, and, of the two, I think time is the more important. Then, the Land


Registry has always operated at a profit to the Crown. It is good to find that a Department in normal times operates at a profit to the Crown. The Land Registry also depends on the plans of the Ordnance Survey, and, therefore, it would be advantageous to have a revenue earning section of the new Ministry to counterbalance the revenue spending which will certainly be inevitable under the new part of its activities. A further reason is that an extension of the compulsory registration of ownership must be part of any serious attempt to deal adequately with the future planning of this country. Therefore, 'the fees obtainable for the compulsory registration of land and so on, which will inevitably be incurred, plus the revenue from the Government maps and plans, would probably balance the civil cost of the Ordnance Survey, now appearing as a debit of the Ministry of Agriculture, leaving only the cost of the planning to be met by a Vote of Credit. Yesterday, in reply to my arguments my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) said:
I do not want to say anything final on that topic or to predict the future, but I would remind the hon. Member that the Ordnance Survey department is at work for a great number of Departments, including the War Departments, and this would not be the time to take it over, even if it were otherwise desirable to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1943; col. 466, Vol. 386.]
We all know that at the present time the Ordnance Survey is working chiefly for the War Office. That must inevitably be so during war-time, and no doubt it will continue to do so, as happened in the last war. The War Office have never taken over the Ordnance Survey permanently in time of peace. It will be essential to have proper maps and plans when the war is over. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is setting up central machinery, and that he is anticipating to some extent the report of the Uthwatt Committee. Why does he not take the opportunity now to extend the machinery and make it as complete as possible. There is, of course, no reason for disturbing the Land Registry and the Ordnance Survey Department for the time being, but steps should be taken to be ready for future emergencies and the work that will come the Minister's way. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me more concrete reasons than I received

yesterday from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The history of the Ordnance Survey Department may interest the Committee. It was started in 1791 in order to prepare a one-inch map for the purpose of national defence and was placed, on that account, under the Board of Ordnance, which is, of course, the reason it has its present title. In 1855, on the dissolution of that Board, it was transferred to the War Office, in 1870 to the Office of Works, and once more, in 1890, to the Ministry of Agriculture, where it is, of course, at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, (Dr. Russell Thomas) has raised the question whether it might not find a more appropriate final resting place with the new Ministry of Town and Country Planning. As was said yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary, neither he nor my right hon. Friend wants to express now any final view that that may not be a good idea. At present, of course, the Ordnance Survey Department is doing a great deal of work for the Service Departments, but I want to remove any impression that that has precluded, or does preclude, them from doing such work as is required for or in connection with town and country planning, such work as has been done up to the present and as will be done by the new Minister. The Ordnance Survey Department is working in the closest possible contact with those who have so far been charged with the consideration of these matters, and will continue to do so. It is rendering all assistance and help to those concerned with town and country planning and the question we have been discussing. However, we do not think it would be an appropriate moment to consider the question of an administrative change which, in view of what I have said, would really make very little difference in substance. That proposal may have something to be said for it, but inevitably it would mean a certain amount of dislocation, reorganisation and possibly rehousing. Therefore, while we appreciate that the idea is one which is worthy of consideration, we think its consideration can, without any prejudice to any interest of the new Minister, be postponed until more favourable times.
With regard to the Land Registry, I do not think the idea of transferring the control of that Department to the new Min-


istry is a good or practicable one. The Land Registry is under the general control of the Lord Chancellor; he is responsible for it, and in this House I answer questions about it on his behalf. It is a technical legal department. Questions which are put to me with regard to it from time to time are questions which obviously it would be unkind to ask anybody but a lawyer to answer. I forget the exact date on which the Land Registry was set up. The job is one in which great care has to be taken to see that no mistakes are made. It was started within a limited area, the areas are gradually being extended, and new areas being added. That it is desirable that this work should be extended I entirely agree, and as the work can be extended no doubt it will play a useful part in the general transfer and development of land; but I do not think it would be a good idea to attempt to transfer that Department, which is a technical legal department, away from the present control of the Lord Chancellor to that of the new Minister.

Mr. McEntee: If the transfer of the Ordnance Survey were considered to be desirable after the war, could that transfer be made without a new Act of Parliament being passed?

The Attorney-General: It could be made without a fresh Act of Parliament if it were thought to be an appropriate measure to take.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for his reply, on one or two points of which I wish to comment. He said that if a transfer were made the work, of the Department would be disturbed, but it is quite clear that if the Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry were placed under one Minister there would be infinitely better co-ordination than if they are distributed throughout different Departments as at present. The Attorney-General referred to the possibility that the-transfer would mean rehousing the Ordnance Survey. I happen to have some little direct interest in the Ordnance Survey because its headquarters were in my constituency for a long period; for 99 years it had its headquarters in Southampton. On the question of rehousing, I would point out that only two or three months ago the whole of the Ordnance Survey was taken from Southampton to somewhere

in Surrey, and those concerned had great difficulties in connection with rehousing. Therefore, that problem exists now. The 600 families of the men are still living in Southampton, and incidentally no extra allowance is being made to them by the Ministry of Agriculture to enable them to keep up two homes, when they are fortunate enough to find the second one. As to the Land Registry, the Attorney-General said that questions put to him concerning it are questions which only a lawyer could answer and that he represented the Lord Chancellor in the House; but surely, in the case of any Government Department, if there are points of peculiar legal difficulty arising, they are always put to the Attorney-General. Therefore I cannot see any argument there against my proposal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the work of the Land Registry was very difficult. Of course, there are enormous difficulties, but surely the new Departments will have to undertake further land registration and further registration of all kinds. Therefore, it seems to me that if the Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry were under the new Ministry's control, it would be a great advantage. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that these changes could be effected later on if they were thought necessary under Clause 6, I am content to have ventilated the matter in this Committee, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir G. Shakespeare: May I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he can give a reply to two questions I raised yesterday? First, what are the intentions of the Government in relation to the powers under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act? Unless the new Minister takes over the complete powers given under that Act, a great deal of the spoliation of the country will go on. Secondly, if it is the Government's intention that the new Minister should take over those powers, can that be done under Clause 6, Sub-section (2)?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): In reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), I think that this Clause


would be sufficient to transfer these further powers, but as I said on the Second Reading of the previous Bill, which is now the Minister of Works and Planning Act, to transfer those powers is not a suitable way of dealing with the problem of ribbon development. Certainly, we are not blind to the evils of ribbon development and we intend to stop it, but even at the present time all ribbon development could be stopped by planning under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and only some of it can be stopped under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act. We are determined that the system of planning as it is developed shall stop this notorious evil, which is recognised in every quarter of the House, but I do not think that the best way of effecting that object would be by transferring powers at present existing under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, although if a different view were to be taken, the Bill now before us would be sufficient to enable it to be done.

Question: That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Power to establish Commissions.)

Sir W. Jowitt: Sir W. Jowitt, I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, to leave out "exercising under the direction of the Minister," and to insert:
assisting the Minister in the exercise of his
In the Second Reading Debate yesterday, I gave the reasons for this Amendment. Its purpose is to remove any anxiety felt by local authorities, who were very anxious to preserve their right to deal direct with the Minister and not to be put off with dealing with a mere Commission. When the local authorities' representatives came to see me, I indicated to them that I thought they were already fully protected because the rights which they had were statutory rights, and one could not by the passing of an Order in Council interfere with statutory rights unless one took express power to do so, which we have not done here; but they were apprehensive. The people whom I saw were very distinguished people who know much more about the law of local government than I ever knew, and in the circumstances I suggested this Amendment, of which they

approved. It becomes quite plain, if we insert the words:
If it appears to his Majesty to be expedient to establish any Commission for the purpose of assisting the Minister in the exercise of his functions,
that the reason for the Commission is to assist the Minister, and the reason for the Commission is not to interfere with other people, namely, the local authorities. Although I think the Amendment is probably unnecessary, yet it has had the effect of removing apprehensions to which the original Clause gave rise by reason of its wise language, and the Committee would perhaps do well to accept it.

Mr. Charles Williams: Although I am not in any way authorised to speak for them, I know that there was a very real fear that the unfortunate things which sometimes happen in dealing with Area Commissioners might be extended. We much prefer our local authorities to continue to have the right of direct access to Ministers. We have given them their powers, and it is only right that these deputies of the House of Commons, which the local authorities really are, should have direct access to Ministers. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very sincerely for having met a very real fear on their part and for having made it clear, so that if there is any controversy in the future we may know that it is the express intention of the Government to be in the closest touch with local authorities and not to deal with them through some queer body which may be called "Area Commissioners" or anything else of that kind.

Mr. Tinker: I am glad my right hon. and learned Friend has brought the matter forward. My town council had a fear that their powers were being taken from them and asked me to watch the matter and find out what the position was. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that the Bill could not supersede certain powers which have already been given and do it by Order in Council. I thought an Act of Parliament might supersede anything that went before it. I did not know there was anything in the Bill to deal with Orders in Council.

Sir W. Jowitt: Of course, an Act of Parliament can alter anything that has gone before. This Clause gives power to do certain things by Order in Council.


When power is given to do things by Order in Council, unless the Act expressly so provides, you must do it so as not to interfere with previous Acts. That is the point.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I regret that I was not in the House when the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his statement, but I, in common with others, have some misgivings about this Clause, and some of our local authorities are certainly very apprehensive. I wonder if I might ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what way he proposes to deal with this. Local authorities since the war have seen this area form of government developed. We have it all over the country, and they are very apprehensive, and rightly so. I fully realise that under any system of town planning you must in some directions have a wider view than the perspective of a local authority, but we have to recognise that local authorities have been the bulwark of our freedom and progress in many directions for generations past, and one wants to feel reassured that Orders in Council will not be submitted to the House without previous consultation with them.

Sir W. Jowitt: There was apprehension because the local authorities thought that their powers and rights might be interfered with by Order in Council. Whether that apprehension was well or ill-founded does not matter, as, in order to meet them, I suggested this form of Amendment, and they are now quite satisfied that their powers are in no way interfered with. If we wanted to interfere with their powers, we could do it by bringing in an Act of Parliament, but as far as this Clause is concerned they are all now quite satisfied that it does not interfere with them.

Mr. George Griffiths: Did I understand the Minister to say that he had met the local authorities this week?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes. I had a letter from the Association of Local Authorities, and a deputation of three came to see me, including Sir Harry Pritchard. It was to him that I suggested this Amendment. He asked for time to sleep on it, and next morning told me he was perfectly satisfied with the position and asked whether I would put the Amendment down or whether he should. I have

heard nothing from any other authority, and I am quite satisfied in my mind that he was speaking for all of them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Bossom: I suppose it is quite certain now that the Bill will become law, and I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Ministry will have a great success, but I hope they will press very quickly for the further legislation which must obviously come forward. There are two matters, though, which give me cause for apprehension. The first is that the officers of the Ministry of Health and later the Ministry of Works and Planning—the same body of men—are to be put into new offices and to sit at new desks and be responsible for the handling of town and country planning under this Bill. Since 1932 more damage has been done, to our countryside and to planning in our towns than at any corresponding time in our entire history, and these same individuals who were in charge of planning in those ministries are to be again responsible for the same work. There will be no additions, because the Bill itself states that the transfer of functions will not of itself involve any increase in the expenditure now being incurred. So there will be no more experts, otherwise it would add cost over the present expenditure. That means that no new minds are to be introduced, and that is in itself a matter of considerable concern. I hope the Minister will take the matter in hand and see that at any rate a new point of view is generated. Much new building in the last 10 years has been unsatisfactory. For example, the building in which the Ministry itself is located, Lambeth Bridge House, is one of the worst pieces of town planning you could find anywhere in Europe, and it was produced during the time these same officials were responsible for planning legislation. At the same time while this bad work has been going on


here, Russia, the United States, Italy and Germany have been doing very fine work in the field of town and country planning. I hope the Minister will see that the old situation does not continue. The second cause for apprehension is that the Bill makes no reference to collaboration with other Departments—the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): There is no question of collaboration in the Bill.

Mr. Bossom: I was expressing my regret that there was no mention of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That could have been done on the Second Reading, but not on the Third.

Mr. Bossom: Also I was rather surprised at a comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday, which struck me as rather unusual. He said:
The new Ministry will be able to give the Government the considered advice of a Minister who will have become expert in the existing and desirable use of the land of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1943; col. 463, Vol. 386.]
I think it very unlikely that the Minister will become an expert in so short a time, especially on a subject which has taken many people a lifetime to master. I hope he will realise that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and that he will make certain he gets good advice before he imparts it to the other Departments. In conclusion, I do trust that the Minister and the Ministry will be really successful in this work, which is much overdue, and will push forward with the new legislation that is essential to make their efforts effective. I hope that when the Minister brings in any further legislation he will give the House plenty of opportunity to consider it carefully and not try to rush us as we have been rushed over this Bill. I asked the Minister-Designate a week ago when this was to be introduced, and he said that it was not coming for weeks. Instead it was suddenly produced, and we have had very little time to examine it. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with such far reaching legislation. When this Bill and the consequent Bills, to make it workable, have been passed it will take at least two years before the substance can become effective. It takes a long time for local authorities to make their decisions for them to get architects and to have

drawings made, and so on. I would, therefore, like to impress the Minister with the need for speed in pursuing all the matters connected with this important problem of town and country planning.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I do not pretend to have a knowledge in this matter comparable to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom). He is an authority in America, and I saw there some of his work which I admired very much. This, I think, is the first instance of a Bill to deal with the post-war planning era. We hear a good deal about post-war planning, and it is said that the Government are bringing nothing forward to deal with it. This, however, is the first result of their work on reconstruction, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on its introduction. I was one of those who followed very closely the discussions on town planning in 1932. Incidently the proposals then were strongly opposed by the present Parliamentary Secretary's party. We expected a great deal from the Bill that was then passed but I have been immensely disappointed at what has happened between 1932 and 1939. All Departments were concerned with it, and particularly the Ministry of Health, but there has been no tangible change in the last 10 years from the point of view of the pure town planning of this country. I hope that with the new Ministry all that will be changed. The Government will be faced with immense difficulties from all sorts of interests in connection with land buildings and local authorities, and unless more power, drive, vigour and energy are put behind this Bill it will be nothing but a disappointment similar to that which followed the measure of 1932. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has some knowledge of this problem, will with his Minister be able to enthuse a little go, drive and energy into the work so that the land of this country will be transformed in such a way that we shall not have the hideous sights that we see at the present time.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Having regard to the numerous speeches that I have made in the House from 1937 onwards, complaining of the outrageous treatment of town and country in the years separating the two wars, it would be idle for me to pretend that town and country planning


had been satisfactory. I shall certainly not do so, but I think that a rather unfair attack has been made on the conduct of the Ministry of Health and on the competence of some of the able civil servants who served in that Department and who will serve the new Ministry. My hon. Friend the member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) is wrong in thinking that there will be nobody coming into our Ministry from outside or that some have not already come into the planning department of my present Ministry.

Mr. Bossom: Will my hon. Friend state a single instance where there has been a protest from the Department about the unsatisfactory work that was going on?

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps we shall get along a little faster if my hon. Friend allows me to reply to what he has already stated. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) said he had been grievously disappointed at what had happened since 1932. So have we all, but do not let us suppose that things would not have been still worse if no part of the country had been placed even under interim control. Under the administration of the Ministry of Health or their successors, some 70 per cent. of the country—to quote a rough figure from memory—has been placed under interim control, but under the Statute under which we are working that does not mean that it is under the control of the central Government. Let me mention the very case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, the building in which the Ministry of Works and Planning at present works. I have already expressed in public my opinion of the planning of that bridge-head in that historic part of London, the angle at which the building is set and the inadequacy and muddle of the whole design and layout. The position, however, is that under interim development control under the existing Statute, if the local authority passes an application for development, the Minister has no power to intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is, I know, eager that that should be altered. I must not anticipate future legislation, but I gather that we shall have his support when we seek to alter it. That is also my reply to the hon. Member for Denbigh. I am not going to suggest for a moment that town and country planning has not hitherto been largely a failure, but do

not let us run from that to the assumption that if we had not attempted anything at all things would not have been worse still. Before we blame the Ministry of Health for what has happened since 1932 let us examine whether the powers under which they operated were adequate.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

CROWN LANDS BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL

Considered in Committee (Progress, 9th December).

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 6 (Calculation of weekly payments in case of changes in rates of remuneration.)

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, after "remuneration," to insert:
or in the duration of employment in each week."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As the Committee will remember, we were unable to conclude the discussion of this Amendment in the limited time available to us on the day before Christmas. In moving to report Progress, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that while he frankly saw no way of overcoming the difficulty which was troubling the Committee, he promised that we would examine the matter once more before the Committee stage was resumed. This re-examination has taken place and has confirmed the views which I expressed on the last occasion about the merits of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I pointed out on that occasion that there were two possible methods of dealing with the grievance arising from the fact that partially disabled men suffer an automatic reduction in their compensation when a general increase in wage rates occurs. The two


alternatives are either to disregard for the purpose of calculating the weekly payment certain additions to wages, or to follow the precedent laid down in Section II Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1925 and make an immediate review of pre-accident earnings whenever rates of remuneration are changed. The latter of these two methods is both the fairer and the simpler. It is fairer because it deals with the workman on the basis of what his position would have been had he remained uninjured in his pre-accident employment. It is simpler because it is equally applicable to cases of total and partial incapacity, and whether the workman who is partially incapacitated is in employment or not. The practical advantages, therefore, of this method are overwhelming. It can, moreover, be made retrospective to deal with cases arising many years ago.
The only difficulty about it—and it is a difficulty which I have never tried to conceal from the Committee—is that it is not possible in every case to ensure that the amount of compensation to be restored shall exactly equal the reduction in compensation which has taken place. In some cases it will be a little more and in some a little less. This difficulty will apply to only a comparatively small number of cases.

Mr. Tinker: Can the Minister give an example of cases in which it will be more?

Mr. Peake: I could cite an example, as where the time worked in the industry is shorter to-day than it was when the accident occurred. There are such cases, but they will be comparatively few.
This difficulty is inherent in the present system of calculating pre-accident earnings. As hon. Members are aware, this has been a matter of controversy for a good many years. It has always presented great difficulties on account of the wide variation in terms of employment in different trades and industries, and the seasonal nature of employment in many of them. While the existing system of calculating pre-accident earnings is admittedly not altogether satisfactory, no one has so far suggested a practical means of improving it. The Trades Union Congress gave evidence before the Royal Commission on this matter and put forward certain tentative suggestions, but they

admitted that they did not succeed in boiling those suggestions down into actual concrete terms. This being the position, and this difficulty having become more prominent as a result of the discussions on the Bill, the Government propose that the method of calculating pre-accident earnings upon a basis that shall fairly assess the earning power of the workman shall be the subject of immediate examination, with a view to negotiation with representatives of employers and workmen at an early date. This course will be adopted without prejudice to any decision which the Government may reach upon its attitude towards the proposals contained in the Report of the Beveridge Committee.
This is a reasonable course for us to adopt. The Trades Union Congress have urged this matter upon us more than once in the last two years. It is a subject upon which in the past it has been impossible to reach any agreement and a matter to which the Home Office have given a good deal of thought. At the same time, there is a rather more accommodating spirit abroad at the present time in industry and I am not without hope that as a result of the examination proposed and of the discussions which will follow, we may be able to arrive at some formula which will be an improvement upon the present system.
In the period which has intervened between our Adjournment before Christmas and to-day, a minor defect in the drafting of Clause 6 has become apparent. We proposed to remedy that defect, but I will say a word more about this matter when I move the next Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. In view of the explanation I have given, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will see his way to withdraw his Amendment and enable the Bill to proceed to the Statute Book.

Mr. Tinker: The Bill has been held up because of this Amendment, which we thought conveyed what we wanted. The partially incapacitated workmen could not stop in their present position and not be getting the full advantage of the advances. When these workmen get their partial compensation something is deducted from ft. The intention of everybody in the country is that they should not suffer in this way. An agitation started and it was taken up in the House of Commons. We got the Home Office to see our point of


view. It was stated that it was the intention of the Department to meet the difficulty.
I am pledged to my party, and I must accept this form of words, but I must make a protest because under these words the man who worked short time before will have his compensation based upon, say, four days a week. Half-a-crown a day is to go on, and he will only have 10s. added to his pre-accident earnings. He will suffer a reduction of his partial compensation because of the advances which have been given. You will get two men receiving partial compensation in a colliery yard, and one compensation will be on an average of four days a week and the other on six days a week. The latter will get the full amount and the former will get something less. We have told our men that Parliament is dealing with the matter and that full partial compensation will be restored to them. Now we have to go back and tell them that this enlightened House of Commons has not been able to give justice to our injured workmen. I take the opportunity to voice my protest. We have to meet our conference in a fortnight's time and some explanation will be wanted from us of how this thing has passed through the House of Commons. We have done all we can but our friends in the mining movement say that they want the Bill and that the Home Office is not prepared to move until we have given way on this matter. We have to give way, but I voice my protest at the serious injustice being done to the partial compensation men.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Before I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, I would like to recall that statements were made before the Bill was brought forward, on the strength of which many of us closely associated with the mining industry told the men in the industry that by the proposed legislation their partial compensation would be restored. We found on examining the Bill that it did not redeem the pledge in a number of cases. There was no qualification about the first statement that was issued that partial compensation was to be restored. It was to be frozen. We are in the difficult position of having to go back to the men in the industry and say that what was said to be the Government's original intention is not to be carried out.
I am extremely pleased to hear the undertaking given on behalf of the Government that this bitter pill is to have a coating of sugar, in the sense that the Government now realise that the method proposed in the Amendment standing in the name of my Friends and myself ought really to be applied to the original calculation of pre-accident earnings, and that the only reason for not conceding the proposal in the Amendment is that there would be two methods of calculating pre-accident earnings if the Amendment were carried. If we are to have a complete examination of the problem of calculating earnings, I am satisfied that we can give to our men the feeling that although for the time being they will not get what was promised, they will get much more than we anticipated in the commencement, as a result of the delay that will ensue. In view of this position, I beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, at the end to insert:
(2) For the purpose of calculating any such weekly payment or supplementary allowances as aforesaid, the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident shall, if any change or changes occurred in the relevant period before the accident in the rates of remuneration obtaining in the class of employment in which the workman was employed during that period, be deemed, subject to the last foregoing subsection, to be the average weekly earnings which he would have earned during that period if the rates obtaining at the date of the accident had obtained throughout that period.
(3) Where any such weekly payment has been increased under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, or under that subsection as applied by any such scheme as aforesaid, and, on any subsequent review of the weekly payment, it appears to the tribunal that any material change in rates of remuneration has occurred since the date when the weekly payment was so increased or (if it has been varied under this subsection) since the date of the last such variation, and that the amount of the weekly payment would have been fixed at that date at a higher or lower figure if the rates of remuneration obtaining at the date of the subsequent review had obtained at the date aforesaid, the tribunal may (subject to the maximum provided in section nine of the said Act) make such increase or reduction of the weekly payment and of any supplementary allowances payable in respect thereof as, having regard to the said change in rates of remuneration and any other material change of circumstances, the tribunal thinks proper.
These two rather formidable looking new Sub-sections carry out the general


purpose of the Clause. Hon. Members will remember that Sub-section (1) of the Clause deals with the case where the change in the rate of remuneration occurs after the date of the accident. Where the change in the rate of remuneration occurs before the date of the accident, if it occurs more than 12 months before, obviously the whole of the increase will be reflected in the injured workman's computation of his pre-accident earnings. The first of these two Sub-sections is to deal with the case where the change in the rate of remuneration occurs less than 12 months, perhaps only a few days, before the date of the accident, and therefore, under the ordinary operation of workmen's compensation law, only part of the period at the increased rate of wages would have come into the calculation of the pre-accident earnings. The new Sub-section (3) deals with the case of persons under the age of 21½ who have a right of review under Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act of 1925. The effect of the new Sub-section is to enable those persons also to obtain the benefit of increases in rates of remuneration which occur after the date of the last review of their cases under Section 11 (2). I feel sure that both these new Sub-sections will be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot resist the temptation of saying a word or two about the new Sub-section (2). The reason given for not accepting the Amendment which has just been withdrawn was that a new principle was being introduced, but the reason apparently for moving the new Sub-section (2) is to establish a new principle in the method of calculating pre-accident earnings and is conferring upon the workman the benefit of a principle which has always been denied to him under the main Act. It is certainly a change which we very much welcome. With regard to Sub-section (3), I want to say that it rectifies a very grave injustice which has been felt for many years with regard to our men who have accidents under the age of 21.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, at the end, insert:
and the expression 'the tribunal' means, in relation to any weekly payment, the county court judge, arbitrator, committee or board by whom any review of the payment is, in default of agreement, carried out."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(5) Section five of the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementary Allowances) Act, 1940 (which enables the Registrar of Friendly Societies to amend schemes certified by him under Section thirty-one of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925), shall apply in relation to the provisions of this Section in like manner as it applies in relation to the provisions of that Act.
This Amendment enables the Registrar of Friendly Societies, where industries have contracted out of the principal Act, to amend the schemes on similar lines to the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Tinker: I want to nut a question to the Under-Secretary. This Bill has been held up to try to get a settlement. When is it expected that payment is to be made? Is it to be retrospective for any period of the time it has been passing through the House? Is there no power in the hands of the Government to date back this Bill so that payment may be made from the time it was expected that it would be passed by the House? I would like to know what can be done.

Mr. Peake: The answer is "No, sir." It would be a most revolutionary proposal if the time taken up by the discussions in the House were always credited, as it were, to the parties proposed to be benefited by the legislation. Moreover, in order to secure agreement on a proposal of that sort, I should have to enter into negotiations with both sides of the industry. There would not be any prospect, as far as I can see, of obtaining agreement. Even if we were to enter upon such discussions, it would further delay the passing of the Bill and the conferring of these benefits upon the workpeople who will benefit by them.

Mr. Tinker: It always seems that we get the worst end of the stick. It is always the workman who has to suffer. If we want to raise something, the threat of delay in the carrying-out of the Measure has its effect in causing us to give way on many things.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is one technical point on which an assurance here might be useful; that is, with regard to the phrasing from line 25 to the end of the paragraph. It says:


…if and whenever a change occurs after the date of the accident in the rates of remuneration obtaining in the class of employment…
etc., it shall be deemed
…so long as the changed rates obtain without further change, to be the average weekly earnings…" etc.
What is troubling some of us is whether under this Clause as it now stands a review can only take place once. It is "if a change" occurs, not "if changes occur" there shall be review, but "if…a change occurs" a review shall take place, and there will be an automatic adjustment so long as that change continues. It appears that there is no provision where a second change follows. It appears that the employer will satisfy the purposes of the Sltute, if, when a change has occurred, there is a review. The phrasing as it now stands is rather weak with regard to the claim of the workman to a further review when a further change occurs. I wonder whether this phrasing could be looked at in another place to meet this point.

Mr. Peake: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. I have been into this point with the Parliamentary draftsmen, and they are absolutely clear that the words mean precisely what they say. They mean "…if and whenever a change occurs…" Therefore, they apply to every change, however many changes may have occurred before. I can give the hon. Member the assurance he asks for in that respect.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7 (Exercise of functions by examining surgeon for district where workman resides.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end, to add:
or to which he has been removed for medical treatment.
This Clause provides that in such cases and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct, a workman claiming to be suffering from a scheduled disease may obtain a certificate for the purposes of the Act from the examining surgeon in the district where he resides instead of the examining surgeon

in the district in which he was employed. There may be cases where a workman is removed for treatment to a hospital which is neither in the district where he was employed nor in the district where he resides, and the proposed Amendment is to cover such a contingency.

Mr. Foster: Did I understand the Under-Secretary to say that it is only in cases where a man is actually in hospital where this will apply, or will it apply whether a man is in hospital or not, that he can be examined by the examining surgeon for that particular area?

Mr. Peake: There are three districts where a certificate may be obtained; either the district in which the workman was employed and the injury took place; or, secondly, the district in which the workman resides at the time; or, thirdly, if he has been taken to hospital in neither of these two districts he can apply to the examining surgeon in the district where the hospital is situated.

Mr. David Grenfell: A man may be working in a place and living near the mine; he may move his residence to some other place. He may also be asked to remove for medical treatment. There are four alternatives. He may be living now in a place other than that in which he was living at the time of the injury, but that does not debar him?

Mr. Peake: The Amendment provides for examination in the district where the workman resides, that is to say, resides at the time of the application for the certificate after the accident.

Mr. Isaacs: This Amendment is very valuable, and I am very glad to know that these words have been added. Merchant seamen may have been injured or have suffered disease while serving abroad, and may be landed at a port where they neither work nor reside. They have suffered hardship and inconvenience on this account, and these words will be welcomed by merchant seamen.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

NEW PARISHES MEASURE

Mr. Denman: I beg to move,
That the New Parishes Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."—[King's Consent signified.]
There are two Measures on the Order Paper; and they have this—and only this—in common. In each case the Ecclesiastical Committee recommends them strongly to the acceptance of the House. The New Parishes Measure is a consolidating Measure, and if you look at the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee you will see that it is welcomed by the Statute Law Committee as "purging the Statute Book of one of the most tangled congeries of ill-digested enactments which disfigure it"—a somewhat acid comment on our past achievements. The Ecclesiastical Committee was shown a large volume of 226 pages, and all that has been compressed into the slight document which you see before you. That is the handiwork of Mr. Speaker's Counsel, and the Committee desired to record the debt of both Church and State to this remarkable and artistic achievement of draftsmanship. In modernising a set of Acts that begin in 1818, there is inevitably some slight change of the law; but nothing to which I should specially call attention except in regard to patronage. Under the old law, there were conditions in which the Crown shared with the Bishops the right of alternate patronage. In the Assembly information was given to us that His Majesty was willing to forego his rights in that respect, and that information has been given in this House also. The Measure gives effect to that change. One other Amendment is of academic interest only. The old Acts gave the Church powers of compulsory purchase: of land. Those powers have not been exercised for over 100 years, and they are dropped from the new Measure.

Sir Smedley Crooke: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the New Parishes Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

EPISCOPAL ENDOWMENTS AND STIPENDS MEASURE

Mr. Denman: I beg to move,
That the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I think I may say that this Measure is very much overdue. The State has not dealt with equal wisdom with its lay leaders and its Church leaders. In the case of Ministers, the State has provided that if a Minister is given a house he shall also normally have that house looked after, at the public expense. It keeps up the house for him, and I believe it even furnishes it. The Bishop, on the other hand, is liable to be saddled with an exceedingly costly and antique house, which is not only expensive to maintain but which requires in these days a small fortune to furnish. Moreover, the State provides a Minister with an adequate staff to carry on his work, but the Bishop has to find his own staff. The Bishop has to pay out of his own funds for such staff as he needs for the administration of his diocese. It has long been obvious that the charges on Bishops' incomes are apt to be excessive, and that it is frequently impossible for the Bishop to maintain these ancient buildings. This Measure permits a scheme to be made with the assent of the Bishop, whereby the palace is taken over by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Stipends and other official expenses become payable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and a reduced stipend is paid to the Bishop.

Mr. Stephen: Will there be any charge on the Treasury?

Mr. Denman: None whatever. No public funds are involved. It is merely a domestic rearrangement of Church funds.

Sir Smedley Crooke: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS (REGULATIONS)

Commander Bower: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council dated 14th October, 1942, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, amending Regulations 18, 47A, 53, 60 and 78 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 24th November, be annulled.
The Order to which my Motion refers is one of those which cover various Defence Regulations. Last week we had a very useful Debate, and the Home Secretary made certain concessions, which I and those hon. Members associated with me think are, as far as they go, very valuable. To-day there are only two Regulations to which I wish to draw attention. The first reads as follows:
After paragraph (2A) of Regulation eighteen of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'(2AA) The Secretary of State may make provision by order for prohibiting persons from residing in Northern Ireland without permission granted under the Order unless they were resident there before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, and any such Order may—
(a) require any person to whom such permission has been granted to comply with such restrictions or obligations with respect to the length of his stay in Northern Ireland, his occupation or employment therein, or the registration or notification of particulars about himself, as may be imposed on him by means of conditions attached to the grant of permission.'
That last paragraph which I have read is one which I and my hon. Friends think is somewhat objectionable. The whole question of delegated legislation is very complicated and I shall refer to that later, but it will be seen that in this Order the Home Secretary, having had certain powers delegated to him by Parliament, then proceeds to make an Order delegating to himself or his representative other powers, as he may see fit, which are entirely beyond the control of Parliament. Doubtless the Under-Secretary will say that these powers to which I refer have already been granted in respect of people in Great Britain in an Order already passed by Parliament. That is very unfortunate, but we see no reason why an unfortunate, unnecessary and undesirable Order which has been passed in respect of Great Britain should be extended to apply to Northern

Ireland. What we object to in this Order is the fact that delegated legislation is used still further to delegate powers to the Minister himself or to some representative of the Minister, such as the one to whom Mr. Justice Humphreys referred in rather scathing terms only a week ago. We think that that is very objectionable.
Turning over the page we find another Order—No. 2—which says:
For paragraph (6) of Regulation forty-seven A of the said Regulations there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
This appears to belong to the Minister for War Transport, who, I am glad to see, is represented on the Front Bench:
(6) No person lawfully engaged to serve on board any ship to which this Regulation applies shall—

(a) join his ship, or be whilst on board his ship, in a state of drunkenness so that the performance of his duties or the navigation of the ship is thereby impeded;
(b) continuedly and wilfully disobey lawful commands or continuedly and wilfully neglect his dunty;
(c) assault the master or any mate or certified engineer of his ship; or
(d) wilfully damage his ship or embezzle or wilfully damage any of her stores or cargo."

That, again, is a condition of an Order already in operation. The facilities afforded to Members of Parliament for examining these Regulations are, as the Home Secretary pointed out last week, quite good, but I have assiduously gone into this matter and I cannot see that this new Regulation does anything which the Merchant Shipping Act had not done years before.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): It increases the penalties.

Commander Bower: The penalties, I am sorry to say, are not mentioned in this Order. At any rate, as regards the ordinary Member of Parliament going into the Library and making use of the services of our very courteous and efficient librarians, it is impossible to distinguish why this Order should be necessary. Those are the only two points I, personally, wish to raise to-day.
Last week the Home Secretary was inclined to suggest that the present facilities for examining and dealing with these Orders were adequate, that Members of Parliament in the ordinary exercise of their duties could find out which of


them were objectionable and take the necessary action. That is exactly what my hon. Friends and I are doing. We are taking action. We have been through IOO or more of these Statutory Rules and Orders and we have found that not more than 30 per cent. of them are in any way objectionable. By a simple process of arithmetic it will be seen that by raising these points every day—it is of course exempted Business—one ought to be able, with good will on both sides, from both the Minister and ourselves, to give the House a day off from exempted Business perhaps once a month. We feel that these Orders have lain on the Table of the House far too long unwept, unhonoured and unsung, or at any rate unexamined by the ordinary Member of Parliament, and we have taken upon ourselves the duty of examining them. It is an arduous duty particularly having regard to the fact that we are expected to carry out our researches in the Library in perpetual twilight these days. I want to make it clear that we shall never bring up any Order just for the sake of being nuisances. We are not trying to create a nuisance value. We are trying to retain the supremacy of Parliament over Ministers.
In the course of my research I found very valuable reports of a Committee in 1932 which was presided over by Lord Donoughmore. It was called the Committee on Ministers' Powers and it has a great deal to say on these various Rules and Orders. It appears to me, having read it carefully, to be a very valuable report.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now referring to the Orders in general and not to this particular Order. We have done that already in one Debate and we cannot have it over again.

Commander Bower: Is it your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I am not allowed to refer to the Donoughmore Report, because it has a very pertinent bearing on this particular case; or can I refer to certain aspects of it?

Mr. Speaker: Only in so far as it affects this particular Order.

Commander Bower: I think I can do that all right. The Donoughmore Report deals with delegated legislation in some detail and if I cut out any generalities, which, I gather, would not be in Order,

I can, I think, within the Rules of Order deal with the question of drafting, which in the case of this Order and many other Orders is extremely obscure. I hope that I may be able to read what this very excellent report says about the question of drafting. It says:
There is one aspect of the unsystematised character of our constitutional procedure for delegated legislation to which we wish to draw special attention. Whereas the drafting of Government Bills is done in the Office of the Parliamentary counsel by barristers selected for that office and, by long training, acquiring a high skill as draughtsmen, the drafting of Regulations is only in certain cases, for example, Regulations which are made by the Treasury, done by or under the supervision of Parliamentary counsel. In other cases it is done by the authorised department, usually though not invariably by their legal branches. The work is there largely in the hands of persons, who, hew-ever able and experienced in their own work, do not possess the very special drafting experience of Parliamentary counsel. We do not attach so much importance to the fact that occasionally the draftsmen are not lawyers. A man may be either a solicitor or counsel and yet not have had the training essential to make a good draughtsman, for good draughtsmanship is one which calls for special qualifications and long experience.
I submit that in these Orders to which I have referred, and in other Orders, the draftsmen have often been at fault. However, I merely wish to draw the attention of the Government to it and—

Mr. Speaker: That does not affect this Order in particular. It affects all Orders. I want the hon. and gallant Member to confine his argument to something which affects this Order in particular and not other Orders.

Commander Bower: Should I be in Order, Sir, in referring to the recommendations of this Committee?

Mr. Speaker: If the recommendations of this Committee affected this Order alone the hon. and gallant Member would be entitled to refer to them, but he cannot refer to them as they generally affect Orders of this kind.

Commander Bower: Then it seems to me that I shall have to seek another occasion. Last week a Debate was held on a Motion similar to that which I have put down to-day and that Debate ranged rather widely.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it was my fault that I allowed a much wider Debate than


I should have done on that occasion. I did it because I thought it would cover all these Motions.

Commander Bower: I find myself in a difficult position. I took the precaution, Mr. Speaker, of consulting your Secretary to-day and I was given to understand that I would be in Order in referring to this Report. Of course, I accept your Ruling without any question whatever. All I can do is to continue my speech and if you, Sir, find that I am out of Order I shall sit down and my hon. Friends and I will have to seek another occasion when we can make our points within the Rules of Order.
Now, with respect to the two Orders I have read, the question of delegation is, naturally, very complicated and all we are trying to do is to suggest to the Government that the setting up of a Committee to deal with these and other Orders would be of value. I do not propose to go further into the Donoughmore Report because I should almost certainly be out of Order if I did so, but I want to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I are not unaware of the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure and if on this occasion we have failed to bring forward what we wished to do, all that can happen is that the procedure which I am seeking to carry out to-day will have to be carried out day after day in the future. That will not worry us very much. We and the Ministers will be able to get to know each other very much better than at present and I hope a good time will be had by all What we want is a Standing or Select Committee on the lines recommended in the Donoughmore Report, which I am sorry to say is out of print. I would like to suggest to the Government that it ought to be printed again. That is all we want.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I realise that the range of debate on this matter must necessarily be extremely narrow, but this is one of the opportunities which private Members have of discussing the machinery under which we are operating in time of war and of which this Order is typical. First, may I say that the House is under some disadvantage in debating Orders of this kind owing to the extraordinarily diffuse and complicated wording which we have to study? I suggest that Government

draftsmen and officials when we are legislating by this method should put their intentions into plain language which can be readily understood by hon. Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has been promised."] But promise and performance differ sometimes. Of course, it is necessary to expedite legislative action, but these Orders are in themselves complete Bills. In happier times they would be complete Bills.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now doing what the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) was doing when I called him to Order. I must remind him that he is now dealing with all these Orders and not this particular Order.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I feel that this Order is open to the same objection as others in that particular respect.

Mr. Speaker: We discussed all that when last an Order of this kind was challenged. I rather find fault with myself for having then allowed a wider discussion than I should have allowed. Had I known it was to be repeated to-day I should not have done so. I ought to have kept the discussion within its proper bounds on that occasion.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am sorry if I have been guilty of repetition, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it relevant to point out that this Order, like others, is the outcome of wide powers given by the House to the executive on 3rd September, 1939. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) in suggesting that a Select Committee would be of great value to the House in "vetting" these particular proposals before they come to us. I think the real point is this: There is danger under this war-time procedure, and under this Order in particular, of the House delegating wider powers to officials than hitherto. I do feel that the time has now come, after three and a half years' experience of this kind of operation, for Parliament to devote some time in the near future to a consideration of a Consolidation Bill, when a wider Debate could take place and when we could make quite sure that the House of Commons would retain its powers.

Mr. Peake: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower), who moved this Prayer, com-


plained, as I understood it, of only two things in the Order-in-Council. So far as the new paragraph 2AA of Regulation 18 is concerned—which is a Regulation which deals with prohibiting residence in Northern Ireland of certain persons—the position is as follows: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a very full explanation of the purpose of this new Regulation in answer to a Parliamentary Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) on 8th October last, and no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend has studied that reply, even if he did not hear it given. Six days later the Order-in-Council was duly made and laid on the Table of the House on the second Sitting Day following the date when it was made. This was on 20th October. My hon. and gallant Friend, as I understand it, objects to that Order itself delegating certain further powers in regard to residence in Northern Ireland. The words of the paragraph are:
The Secretary of State may make provision by Order for prohibiting persons from residing in Northern Ireland without permission granted under the Order unless they were there before the first day of January, 1940.
The Regulation then proceeds to state what such further Order may contain. This Regulation states perfectly plainly, in language which anybody can understand, what is its purpose. It is to prevent certain persons from residing in Northern Ireland.

Commander Bower: The thing to which we object in this Order is contained in the last words of paragraph (a), which states:
as may be imposed on him by means of conditions attached to the grant of permission.
The Home Secretary is delegating to himself or his representative power to vary the conditions in respect of different individuals who may go to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend made it clear that this was not intended to apply, and did not apply, to temporary visitors to Northern Ireland. I think a period of six weeks as the minimum length of stay to which the Order applies is laid down either in the Regulation or in the Order made under it; but obviously it must be right, when you are taking a power to prohibit residence altogether, to be able to modify the stringency of that provision and say that residence may be permitted subject to certain conditions. For example, there may be a man from Southern

Ireland coming in to undertake a particular job, such as the construction of an aerodrome. Unless there is this power of attaching conditions, my right hon. Friend would either have to give unconditional permission to them to reside in Northern Ireland or to exclude them altogether. It may well be that what is, in fact, required is to put a term upon their possible stay there, a month, three months, or six months. That is the only reason the power is taken to impose conditions upon the granting of permission.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred also to that part of the Order in Council which amends Regulation 47A, which deals with merchant shipping. He said quite frankly that the offences set out in this new Amendment to Regulation 47A appeared to him to be already offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts, and therefore, he had not been able to make out the purpose of the new Regulation. I quite appreciate his difficulty. The main purpose, if not the only purpose, of the Amendment, is to make these offences offences under the Defence Regulations and to bring them within the scope of Defence Regulation 92, which is the general penalty Clause where no penalty is contained in the terms of the individual Regulation.

Commander Bower: May I say that I think this is a very good example of a case where simplicity might have been achieved if there had been some explanatory memorandum, as has been promised, which would have mentioned Defence Regulation 92. I failed to get to it.

Mr. Peake: That was exactly what I was about to say. Here is a case where a short statement would have made the whole purpose perfectly clear to hon. Members, and this is the sort of case which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had in mind when he said that in future explanatory statements would be made where they appeared to be necessary and would always be made if they were asked for.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: And laid prior to the Order being brought before the House?

Mr. Peake: Obviously, I cannot go beyond what the Home Secretary stated on this matter last week. I have dealt with the specific points raised in opposition to the Order in Council, and I think that


under the Ruling you have given, Mr. Speaker, I should be going too far if I tried to deal with the general situation.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I do not join in support of the Prayer; I just want to put one or two questions to the Under-Secretary of State. His remarks brought to my mind that I have had correspondence from Northern Ireland asking me if I could do anything in connection with this very problem, about which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. I have replied to the effect that we in this Parliament have nothing to do with the Government of Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether I was wrong? How far do the Government in this country intervene in the movements of individuals in Northern Ireland? The case I have in mind is one of two workmen in Belfast who have been arrested. I understood that actions of that sort rested exclusively with the Government of Northern Ireland. From the hon. Gentleman's speech it seems that I am not right in my assumption. The other point to which I want to refer is the punishment for misdeeds on board ship. I understand that there is provi-

sion in one Regulation for punishing a sailor who may be found drunk on board ship. Is there any punishment for dealing with the person who supplies the sailor with the drink to make him drunk?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of the Order in Council.

Mr. Peake: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member, questions of immigration into and emigration from Northern Ireland are what are called reserved subjects under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to which I would refer the hon. Member if he wants to gain a precise knowledge of the powers which are reserved to the Imperial Parliament and those which are granted to the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

Commander Bower: In view of the Under-Secretary's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]